Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86 Filed 11/22/13 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) ) SCOTT LIVELY, individually and as ) President of Abiding Truth Ministries, ) Defendant. ) SEXUAL MINORITIES UGANDA

Civil Action 3:12-CV-30051

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiff Sexual Minorities Uganda respectfully requests that the Court enter the attached proposed Protective Order to ensure that sensitive or confidential information produced in the course of discovery is not improperly disclosed. The proposed Protective Order permits producing parties, including third parties, to designate testimony or material as subject to the terms of the Protective Order if such party has a good faith basis to believe that it contains or reveals (a) highly personal information, including sexual orientation and/or gender identity, medical or financial information, or the home, office, or e-mail address or phone number for certain individuals; (b) the associational activity of any individual for whom disclosure of such activity is likely to expose them to threats, reprisal, or harassment; (c) information about Plaintiffs internal structure that would adversely affect its ability to advocate on behalf of its members; or (d) information that by law or by contract may not be publicly disclosed. The proposed Protective Order also establishes rules for use and disclosure of such materials. With the entry of the proposed Protective Order, both parties and third parties will have confidence that materials properly designated will not be disclosed without advance notice and an opportunity to contest such potential disclosure. Accordingly, its entry will facilitate the discovery process by preventing the withholding of relevant documents or testimony on the basis of confidentiality alone.

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86 Filed 11/22/13 Page 2 of 9

ARGUMENT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), the Court, for good cause, may issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. While district courts generally favor liberal pretrial discovery, the trial court has broad discretion to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1986). See also Poliquin v. Garden Way, Inc., 989 F.2d 527, 532 (1st Cir. 1993) ([G]reat deference is shown to the district judge in framing and administering [protective] orders). Protective orders are appropriate particularly where disclosure may endanger a party or where the public release of certain discovery could subject parties or witnesses to harassment and reprisals. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. at 26-27. A finding of good cause must be based on a particular factual demonstration of potential harm, not on conclusory statements. Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 1986). I. Witnesses could face annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden or expense. As the First Amended Complaint (FAC) describes, and as Plaintiff will demonstrate in this litigation, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, and intersex (LGBTI) community in Uganda suffers from widespread and systematic persecution, including arbitrary arrests and detention and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, see FAC 30, 34, 186-89; public outings of persons sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or associational activities, see id. 216-23; unlawful raids of gatherings and private homes, see id. 165-85, 209-10; and denial of critical services and forced evictions, see id. 190-93, 228. This persecution has been noted by the United States Department of State, see, e.g., United States Department of State, 2012 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - Uganda, Apr. 19, 2013, available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/204390.pdf (describing violence and discrimination against the LGBTI community); international media outlets, see, e.g., Naomi 2

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86 Filed 11/22/13 Page 3 of 9

Abraham, Gay Africans flee persecution, Salon, Oct. 29, 2011, at http://www.salon.com/2011/10/29/gay_africans_flee_persecution/; Matt OBrien, Ugandan escapes anti-gay persecution in U.S., Seattle Times, Sept. 10, 2011, available at http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2016162095_gayugandan11.html; Jeffrey Gettleman, Gay in Uganda, and Feeling Hunted, N.Y. Times, Jan. 4, 2010, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04gay.html; inter-governmental bodies, see, e.g., United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Laws criminalizing homosexuality are incompatible with international human rights standards and fuel homophobia, Mar. 10, 2011, at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/Homophobia.aspx (noting persecution in Uganda); Court of Justice of the European Union, Homosexual applicants for asylum can constitute a particular social group who may be persecuted on account of their sexual orientation, PRESS RELEASE No 145/13, Luxembourg, Nov. 7, 2013, available at http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2013-11/cp130145en.pdf (ruling that LGBT persons fleeing persecution in Uganda should be granted asylum); and international nongovernmental organizations monitoring human rights violations globally, see, e.g., Organization for Refuge, Asylum & Migration (ORAM), Blind Alleys: The Unseen Struggles of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Urban Refugees in Mexico, Uganda and South Africa Part II: Country Findings: Uganda, Feb. 2013, available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/524d45e84.html; Freedom House, Persecution of LGBTI Ugandans Continues Despite Court Decision on Theater Producer, Jan. 4, 2013, at http://www.freedomhouse.org/article/persecution-lgbti-ugandans-continues-despite-courtdecision-theater-producer; Amnesty International, Amnesty International Annual Report 2012 Uganda, May 24, 2012, available at http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/uganda/report-2013. The intense climate of hostility against the LGBTI community is encapsulated in this statement made during deliberations on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Ugandas Parliament: We must exterminate homosexuals before they exterminate society. Statement by Shadow Minister of 3

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86 Filed 11/22/13 Page 4 of 9

Information and National Guidance (Mr. Christopher Kibanzanga), The Official Report of the Parliament of Uganda, Apr. 15, 2009, available at http://www.parliament.go.ug/hansard/hans_view_date.jsp?dateYYYY=2009&dateMM=04&date DD=15. In the aftermath of public outings in particular, the victims of such outings have experienced increased levels of threats, harassment and assaults as well as intensified discrimination, including in the form of housing evictions and termination of employment. The annexed declaration of Pepe Julian Onziema, employed as an advocacy officer at Plaintiff Sexual Minorities Uganda, sets out the risks faced by members of the LGBTI community in Uganda as well as those who advocate on their behalf. From his position, Onziema has come to know other LGBTI persons and activists in Uganda who have faced death threats, daily harassment by the police, shop-owners, persons on the street and others; evictions; and other discrimination as a result of being outed in the media. Declaration of Pepe Julian Onziema (Onziema Decl.) 3. According to Onziema, some have faced so much insecurity that they have fled Uganda and sought asylum elsewhere. Id. Onziema describes his own personal experiences with intensifying harassment and even death threats in the wake of such outings. Id. at 7-11, 14-15. Onziema and a number of colleagues were named in one tabloid publication, Rolling Stone, in 2010 under the headline HANG THEM; THEY ARE AFTER OUR KIDS!! and accusing Onziema and the others named in the tabloid as planning to recruit 1,000,000 innocent kids by 2012. Id.at 4-6 and Ex. A. Subsequently, Onziema and other colleagues featured in the article received death threats via phone and text. Id. at 8. Onziema was effectively evicted from his home as his landlord refused to renew his lease, and he had trouble finding new housing as landlords would often refuse to rent to him. Id. at 9-10. Onziema also suffered such public outings by another tabloid publication, Red Pepper. Id. at 14. Following such outings, Onziema has been harassed and detained by police without charge. Id. at 15. During such encounters, police 4

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86 Filed 11/22/13 Page 5 of 9

officers have made comments indicating their treatment of him was based on his advocacy for LGBTI rights and status as an LGBTI person. Id. See also, e.g., Gays Reportedly Attacked in Uganda After Newspaper Publishes List of Top 100 Homosexuals, FoxNews.com, Oct. 20, 2010, at http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/10/20/ugandan-embassy-defends-equal-rightsgay-list-appears-newspaper/; Chris Rovzar, Ugandan Newspaper Publishes Names of Top 100 Homosexuals, Calls for Their Hanging, N.Y. Magazine, Oct. 19, 2010, at http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2010/10/ugandan_newspaper_publishes_na.html. Public knowledge of attempts by LGBTI persons and advocates to vindicate their rights has similarly lead to increased levels of threats and harassment. For example, Onziema and two of his colleagues brought suit against Rolling Stone in a Ugandan court for its outings of them in 2010. See Onziema Decl. 12. In December 2010, the court ruled that the publication threatened the rights of the complainants to respect for human dignity and protection from inhuman treatment and the right to privacy of the person and home and ordered an injunction against the tabloid. See id. Ex. B (Judgment of Ugandan High Court). Nevertheless, as Onziemas declaration describes, their initiation of this suit caused them to suffer from further threats and harassments. Id. at 12-13. Similarly, here, disclosure of some witnesses names and other identifying information without adequate confidentiality protections could cause those witnesses to suffer increased levels of persecution either based on their perceived sexual orientation and/or gender identity 1 or advocacy around these issues or based on their participation in this litigation implicating as coconspirators several civil society leaders and well-known persons in Uganda.

This Court has recognized privacy concerns related to the exposure of ones sexual orientation. Liberty Media Holdings v. Swarm Sharing Hash File, 821 F. Supp. 2d 444, 453 n.8 (D. Mass. 2011) (Young, D.J.). Courts have even permitted plaintiffs to proceed anonymously [w]here the issues involved are matters of a sensitive and highly personal nature, such as homosexuality. S. Methodist Univ. Assn of Women Law Students v. Wynne & Jaffe, 599 F.2d 707, 712-13 & n.10 (5th Cir. 1979) (collecting cases). 5

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86 Filed 11/22/13 Page 6 of 9

II. Witnesses rights to freedom of association could be violated through disclosure of their membership in certain advocacy groups or participation in certain activities. Restrictions on disclosure surrounding the associational activities of certain witnesses may be necessary to protect their fundamental rights to associate freely, particularly where it can be shown that on past occasions such revelations exposed an associations members to economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility, including from private community pressures. NAACP v. Ala. ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 462-63 (1958) (emphasis in original). See also Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Spitzer, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18700, at *14 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2005) (Should there be a showing of reasonable probability that compelling disclosure will lead to some form or specter of harassment, threat, or reprisal of the organization and/or its members, such commanded disclosure runs afoul of the First Amendment.). Should Plaintiff adequately assert an associational privilege in response to a specific discovery request, the burden shifts to the party seeking the disclosure to demonstrate a compelling need for the information that will survive exacting scrutiny. Sherwin-Williams, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18700, at *15. Should Defendant meet that burden in a particular instance, restrictions as to whom such information may be disclosed will be necessary to balance the interests of both parties. See, e.g., Christ Covenant Church v. Town of Southwest Ranches, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49483, at *33 (S.D. Fla. June 29, 2008) (where plaintiff had adequately asserted associational privilege, the court assessed the compelling need for the information, the availability of the information from alternative sources and whether the discovery request constituted the means least restrictive on the individuals associational rights, among other factors, and determined that it should be

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86 Filed 11/22/13 Page 7 of 9

produced subject to a protective order and disclosed to no one other than counsel for the [defendant]). Plaintiffs proposed Protective Order facilitates this process. III. An attorneys eyes only designation of certain disclosures will be necessary to protect some witnesses. As set out in the FAC, by his own admissions, Defendant has worked closely with key actors in Uganda who have either themselves outed or endorsed efforts to publicly out members of Ugandas LGBTI community. In his answer to the FAC, Defendant admitted that he has called alleged co-conspirator Stephen Langa a good friend and ministry partner. Def.s Answer (dkt. 83) at 94. Plaintiff has alleged that Langa has called for investigation into private lives to determine the prominence and impact of homosexuality in Uganda, in order to punish LGBTI persons. FAC 109. Plaintiff has further alleged Defendants long and close association with Martin Ssempa since 2002, id. at 119-140, and Defendant admits to having associated with Ssempa, see dkt. 83 at 129, 139. Ssempa has personally posted the names, photos and contact information of LGBTI advocates who he called homosexual promoters. FAC 126 (citing Human Rights Watch, Letter to Congressional Caucus about US support for Ugandan Homophobia, Oct. 12, 2007, available at http://www.hrw.org/news/2007/10/10/lettercongressional-caucus-about-us-supportugandan-homophobia). The Rolling Stone tabloid described above was started by two individuals affiliated with Ssempa, and Ssempa was featured in an exclusive interview in the issue outing LGBTI activists, in which he was quoted as saying with respect to homosexuality, We shall fight on until we rescue our country from the hands of evilThis war has just started. Onziema Decl. Ex. A. Finally, Defendant has admitted to associating with James Nsaba Buturo, see dkt. 83 at 143; FAC 143, who has called for government catalogu[ing] of people we think are involved in perpetuating the vice of homosexuality, FAC 152 (citing Tough Anti-Gay Law Due, Interview by Alfred Wasike with Minister for Ethics and Integrity, James Nsaba Buturo, Sunday Vision, Aug. 25, 2007), and ominously stated that the days of homosexuals are over, FAC 156 (citing Anna Smith and 7

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86 Filed 11/22/13 Page 8 of 9

Geof Magga, Ugandas Anti-Pornography Law to Fight Homosexual Vice, Afrik News, Sept. 8, 2010, available at http://www.afrik-news.com/article18213.html). Plaintiff expects that this designation will only be necessary with respect to highly sensitive information, which, if Defendant were to even inadvertently share with his alleged coconspirators or anyone else, could result in irreparable harm. In such cases, courts have even found such sensitivities grounds for protecting the information from disclosure altogether. See, e.g., Dinler v. City of New York (In re City of New York), 607 F.3d 923, 935-37 (2d Cir. 2010) (distinguishing disclosure of confidential information on an attorneys eyes only basis as a routine feature of civil litigation involving trade secrets where if the information were inadvertently shared with the opposing party, the injury may usually be remedied by an injunction or money damages from disclosure on this restricted basis of police field reports, which if inadvertently disclosed more widely could result in endangering individual lives, which is far more difficult to remedy). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter Plaintiffs proposed Protective Order.

Dated: November 22, 2013 Luke Ryan (Bar No. 664999) 100 Main Street, Third Floor Northampton, MA 01060 Tel. (413) 586-4800 Fax (413) 582-6419 lryan@strhlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Pamela Spees Pamela C. Spees, admitted pro hac vice Baher Azmy, admitted pro hac vice Jeena Shah, admitted pro hac vice Center for Constitutional Rights 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 212-614-6431 - Phone 212-614-6499 - Fax pspees@ccrjustice.org

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86 Filed 11/22/13 Page 9 of 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing was filed electronically, that it will be served electronically upon all parties of record who are registered CM/ECF participants via the NEF, and that paper copies will be sent to any parties indicated on the NEF as non-registered participants on November 22, 2013. /s/Pamela Spees Pamela Spees

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 1 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 2 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 3 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 4 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-2 Filed 11/22/13 Page 1 of 14

EXHIBIT A

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-2 Filed 11/22/13 Page 2 of 14

Page 1 of 1

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-2 Filed 11/22/13 Page 3 of 14

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/btb/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/RollingStone2010.09.02... 1/4/2012

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-2 Filed 11/22/13 Page 4 of 14

EXHIBIT B

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-2 Filed 11/22/13 Page 5 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-2 Filed 11/22/13 Page 6 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-2 Filed 11/22/13 Page 7 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-2 Filed 11/22/13 Page 8 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-2 Filed 11/22/13 Page 9 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-2 Filed 11/22/13 Page 10 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-2 Filed 11/22/13 Page 11 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-2 Filed 11/22/13 Page 12 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-2 Filed 11/22/13 Page 13 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-2 Filed 11/22/13 Page 14 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-3 Filed 11/22/13 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION SEXUAL MINORITIES UGANDA Plaintiff, v. SCOTT LIVELY, individually and as President of Abiding Truth Ministries Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action 3:12-CV-30051

[Proposed] ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY OF CERTAIN DISCOVERY MATERIAL IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall follow the procedures set forth below with respect to information, documents, electronically stored information, or things produced or otherwise disclosed in the above-captioned action (the Action). 1. Scope. All information furnished by a party or non-party in conjunction with this

Action that is confidential information (Confidential Information) may be designated CONFIDENTIAL or that is highly confidential information (Highly Confidential Information) may be designated as HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL and furnished to counsel for the parties, the parties, and/or other qualified persons pursuant to the terms of this Protective Order (Order). The individual or entity receiving the Confidential Information or Highly Confidential shall treat it as proprietary information and shall not use or disclose the information except as set forth in this Order. The provisions of this Order extend to all Confidential Information or Highly Confidential Information regardless of the manner in which it is disclosed. This Order shall not apply to or affect the use of information obtained by a party outside the course of discovery in this litigation.

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-3 Filed 11/22/13 Page 2 of 12

2.

Information Filed with the Court. To the extent that any materials subject to this

Order (or any pleading, motion or memorandum referring to them) are proposed to be filed or are filed with the Court, those materials and papers, or any portion thereof which disclose Confidential Information or Highly Confidential Information, shall be filed under seal (by the filing party) with the Clerk of the Court in an envelope marked SEALED PURSUANT TO ORDER OF COURT DATED ________________, together with a simultaneous motion to seal the documents, even if the filing party believes that the information subject to this Order is not properly classified as confidential. 3. Use of Confidential Information. Confidential Information shall be used by any

party, other than the producing party, solely for the purpose of conducting this Action, except as required by law, and shall not be disclosed by the party receiving such information to anyone except as provided herein. 4. Disclosure of Confidential Information. Access to information designated

CONFIDENTIAL pursuant to this Order shall be limited to: (a) the parties, including any director, officer or employee of Plaintiff charged

with the responsibility for making decisions dealing directly with the resolution of this Action, and counsel for the parties, including members or associates of such counsels firm, as well as their legal interns and paralegal, secretarial, and clerical personnel who are engaged in assisting such counsel in this Action; (b) any investigative personnel assisting counsel for the parties in this Action,

so long as the investigative persons reside in the United States or are otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of a United States court, such that the Order may be legally enforced with respect to such persons, and so long as no more than five persons are

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-3 Filed 11/22/13 Page 3 of 12

designated by a party as investigative personnel for the purposes of compliance with this Order; (c) outside photocopying, data processing, graphic production, stenographers,

or videographers employed by the parties or their counsel to assist in this Action, so long as such persons reside in the United States or are otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of a United States court, such that the Order may be legally enforced with respect to such persons; (d) outside experts who are not employed by or affiliated with any party or an

affiliate of a party and are retained by counsel for the purposes of consulting and/or testifying in this Action, so long as the outside experts reside in the United States or are otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of a United States court, such that the Order may be legally enforced with respect to those persons, and so long as no more than five persons are designated by a party as an outside expert for the purposes of compliance with this Order; (e) any person whose testimony is taken or is to be taken by deposition or at

trial in this Action who in good faith is required to be shown or questioned about such material in order to assist such attorney in the preparation or the conduct of this Action, provided disclosing counsel determines in good faith that the disclosure is necessary for the effective prosecution or defense of the Action and provides adequate notice to the producing party such that the producing party may object to such disclosure (witnesses shown Confidential Information pursuant to this subparagraph shall not be allowed to retain copies);

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-3 Filed 11/22/13 Page 4 of 12

(f)

any person who authored or received the particular material sought to be

disclosed to that person (provided that the document has not been altered since that person authored or received the material); (g) this Court or any other Court exercising jurisdiction with respect to this

Action, Court personnel, jurors, alternate jurors, and qualified persons (including necessary clerical personnel) recording, taking or transcribing testimony or argument at any deposition, hearing, trial or appeal in this Action; and (h) writing. 5. Notification of the Order for Confidential Information. Confidential Information any other person to whom the party producing the information agrees in

may be disclosed pursuant to paragraph 4 provided that persons who receive the Confidential Information are provided a copy of this Order, they represent that they have read and understand the provisions of this Order by signing the appropriate exhibit to this Order, and they are advised by the disclosing counsel that such persons are bound by the provisions of this Order. 6. Use of Confidential Information at Trial or Hearing. A party may, subject to the

rules of evidence and further Orders of the Court, use any Confidential Information for any purpose at trial or at any hearing before a judicial officer in this Action, provided reasonable notice is given to counsel for the party who produced the Confidential Information and that such information is discussed in camera, unless the producing party consents to the use of such information in open court. 7. Use of Highly Confidential Information. Highly Confidential Information shall

be used by counsel for any party, other than the producing party, solely for the purpose of

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-3 Filed 11/22/13 Page 5 of 12

conducting this Action, except as required by law, and shall not be disclosed by counsel for the party receiving such information to anyone except as provided herein. 8. Disclosure of Highly Confidential Information. Access to information designated

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL pursuant to this Order shall be limited to: (a) counsel of record for the parties, including members or associates of such

counsels firm, as well as their legal interns and paralegal, secretarial and clerical personnel who are engaged in assisting such counsel in this Action; (b) any investigative personnel assisting counsel for the parties in this Action,

so long as the investigative personnel reside in the United States or are otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of a United States court, such that the Order may be legally enforced with respect to such persons, and so long as no more than five persons are designated by a party as investigative personnel for the purposes of compliance with this Order; (c) outside photocopying, data processing, graphic production, stenographers,

videographers or translators employed by the parties or their counsel to assist in this Action, so long as such persons reside in the United States or are otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of a United States court, such that the Order may be legally enforced with respect to such persons; (d) outside experts who are not employed by or affiliated with any party or an

affiliate of a party and are retained by counsel for the purposes of consulting and/or testifying in this Action, so long as the outside experts reside in the United States or are otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of a United States court, such that the Order may be legally enforced with respect to such persons, and so long as no more than

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-3 Filed 11/22/13 Page 6 of 12

five persons are designated by a party as an outside expert for the purposes of compliance with this Order; (e) any person who authored or received the particular material sought to be

disclosed to that person (provided that the document has not been altered since that person authored or received the material); (f) this Court or any other Court exercising jurisdiction with respect to this

Action, Court personnel, jurors, alternate jurors, and qualified persons (including necessary clerical personnel) recording, taking or transcribing testimony or argument at any deposition, hearing, trial or appeal in this Action; and (g) writing. 9. Disclosure of Highly Confidential Information to Any Testifying Person. Any any other person to whom the party producing the information agrees in

person whose testimony is taken or is to be taken by deposition or at trial in this Action who in good faith is required to be shown or questioned about Highly Confidential Information in order to assist such attorney in the preparation or the conduct of this Action, provided disclosing counsel determines in good faith that the disclosure is necessary for the effective prosecution or defense of the Action, provides adequate notice to the producing party such that the producing party may object to such disclosure, and, where the information designated as Highly Confidential consists of or includes the names of witnesses, pseudonyms are used and identifying information for the witnesses is excluded (witnesses shown Highly Confidential Information pursuant to this subparagraph shall not be allowed to retain copies); 10. Notification of the Order for Highly Confidential Information. Highly

Confidential Information may be disclosed pursuant to paragraphs 8 and 9 provided that persons

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-3 Filed 11/22/13 Page 7 of 12

who receive the Highly Confidential Information are provided a copy of this Order, they represent that they have read and understand the provisions of this Order by signing the appropriate exhibit to this Order, and they are advised by the disclosing counsel that such persons are bound by the provisions of this Order. 11. Use of Highly Confidential Information at Trial or Hearing. A party may, subject

to the rules of evidence and further Orders of the Court, use any Highly Confidential Information for any purpose at trial or at any hearing before a judicial officer in this Action, provided reasonable notice is given to counsel for the party who produced the Highly Confidential Information and that such information is discussed in camera and outside the presence of the parties, unless the producing party consents to the use of such information in open court. 12. Objections to Designations. In the event a party objects to the designation under

this Order by another party of any material, the objecting party shall consult with the other party to attempt to resolve their differences. The objecting party shall advise the designating party in writing of the objection and identify the document or material with sufficient specificity to permit the other to identify it. Within five business days of receiving the written objection, the designating party shall advise whether the designation will be removed. The party responding to the objection must have a good faith basis for defending its designation. Within 10 business days of receiving the written objection, the designating party shall provide a written explanation of the basis for each confidential designation. If the parties are unable to reach an accord as to the proper designation of the material, the objecting party may apply to the Court for a ruling that the material shall not be so treated, giving notice to the party which has produced the material. The producing party has the burden of supporting its designation. If the parties are unable to reach an accord and if no application to the Court is made, the material will remain as designated. Any

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-3 Filed 11/22/13 Page 8 of 12

information which had been produced and designated CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, but which is subject to a dispute as to its proper designation, shall be treated in accordance with its putative designation pending resolution of the dispute. 13. Preservation of Rights and Privileges. Nothing contained in this Order shall

affect the right, if any, of any party or witness to make any type of objection, claim, or other response to discovery requests, including, without limitation, interrogatories, requests for admissions, requests for production of documents or questions at a deposition. However, no party may withhold materials or decline to answer questions based on a claim that the information sought is confidential but not privileged. Nor shall this Order be construed as a waiver by any party of any legally cognizable privilege to withhold any Confidential Information or Highly Confidential Information, or of any right which any party may have to assert such privilege at any stage of this Action. Nor shall this Order be construed as a waiver by any party as to the relevance or admissibility of any Confidential Information or Highly Confidential Information at any hearing or trial. 14. Return of Materials. The provisions of this Order shall, absent written permission

of the producing party or further Order of this Court, continue to be binding throughout and after the conclusion of the Action. Within thirty (30) days after the final resolution of this Action, all Confidential Information and Highly Confidential Information produced by a party, including copies, abstracts, summaries or other information, shall be destroyed or, at the request of the party that produced the information, returned to counsel for that party. Counsel shall be entitled to retain pleadings, deposition transcripts, and the trial record (including exhibits) even if such materials contain Confidential Information or Highly Confidential Information, so long as such information is clearly marked to reflect that they contain information subject to this Order.

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-3 Filed 11/22/13 Page 9 of 12

15.

Inadvertent or Unintentional Disclosure. The inadvertent or unintentional

disclosure by the producing party of information subject to a claim of privilege, including, but not limited to, the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine (an Inadvertently Produced Privileged Document), regardless of whether the information was so designated at the time of disclosure, shall not be deemed a waiver in whole or in part of a partys claim of privilege, either as to the specific information disclosed or as to any other information relating thereto or on the same or related subject matter. Upon learning of an inadvertent or unintentional disclosure of an Inadvertently Produced Privileged Document, the producing party shall within ten days assert a claim of privilege and request that the inadvertently produced information be destroyed or returned. Upon receipt of a request to return or destroy an Inadvertently Produced Privileged Document, the receiving party will return or destroy the inadvertently produced item, and all copies and derivations, within two business days. The party having returned or destroyed the Inadvertently Produced Privileged Document may thereafter seek production of the information, but shall not assert waiver as a grounds for such production. 16. Notice. Any party or person in possession of Confidential Information or Highly

Confidential Information who receives a subpoena (or other process) from any person (including natural persons, corporations, partnerships, firms, governmental agencies, departments or bodies, boards or associations) who is not a party to this Order, which subpoena seeks production or other disclosure of such Confidential Information or Highly Confidential Information, shall promptly give written notice by e-mail and regular mail to counsel for the party who produced or designated the materials as confidential identifying the materials sought and enclosing a copy of the subpoena or other process. The party or person receiving the subpoena shall also inform the person seeking the Confidential Information or Highly Confidential Information that such

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-3 Filed 11/22/13 Page 10 of 12

information is confidential, subject to a protective order and may not be disclosed without the consent of the party that produced the information or court order. The person subject to the subpoena or other process shall not produce or disclose the requested information until ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction or otherwise required by law to produce or disclose such information. 17. Secure Facilities. All Confidential Information and Highly Confidential

Information shall be kept in secure facilities, and access to those facilities shall be permitted only to those designated persons set forth in Paragraphs 4 and 8, respectively, as persons properly having access thereto. For purposes of this provision, secure facilities is defined to include the law offices of counsel of record for the parties and on the person of any counsel of record or support staff who have signed the protective order and any password protected computer of any designated persons pursuant to Paragraphs 4 and 8, respectively. 18. Violation. Any party to this action may file a motion requesting the Court to

sanction or hold in contempt of Court anyone who violates the terms of this order. 19. This Order shall remain in force and effect until modified, superseded, or

terminated by consent of the parties or by Order of the Court made upon reasonable written request. Subject to further modification by the court, it is so ORDERED.

10

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-3 Filed 11/22/13 Page 11 of 12

Exhibit A (Attorneys) I, the undersigned, an attorney at _________________________________ have received a copy of the Order entered by the Court on __________ in Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Lively, Civil Action 3:12-CV-30051 (D. Mass.). I have read and understood that Order, and I agree to be bound by the provisions of that Order.

Dated: __________________________

________________________________ [Signature]

________________________________ [Print name here]

Case 3:12-cv-30051-MAP Document 86-3 Filed 11/22/13 Page 12 of 12

Exhibit B (Non-Attorneys) I, the undersigned, have receive have received a copy of the Order entered by the Court on __________ in Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Lively, Civil Action 3:12-CV-30051 (D. Mass.). I have read and understood that Order, and have had it explained to me by counsel for ______________________. I agree to be bound by the terms of that Order.

Dated: __________________________

________________________________ [Signature]

________________________________ [Print name here]