1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

GARY LEE SEYMOUR,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:20-cv-214-TKW/MJF 

RICKY D. DIXON, 

 Defendant.

_______________________________________/ 

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE AND PARTIAL OBJECTION TO ‘PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR HIPPA-QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER’ 

COMES NOW Defendant, RICKY DIXON, through undersigned counsel, and does

hereby respond to Plaintiff’s above-styled pending motion. [Doc. 75] Defendant states the 

following: 

1. Plaintiff has moved for a HIPPA-Qualified Protective Order [Doc. 75], and submitted a 

proposed Order attached thereto. [Doc. 75-1] 

2. Defendant agrees that a Protective Order is needed for Plaintiff to obtain medical records 

pertaining to Plaintiff’s medical condition, which are relevant to this suit, and his ‘protected health

information’ (‘PHI’), which are in Defendant’s official custody and control. 

3. However, insofar as Plaintiff also seeks medical or other records pertaining to ‘other 

institutions’ where he has been housed, which reflect orders, supplies, etc., not specific to Plaintiff, 

Defendant objects. They are not limited in scope to Plaintiff’s claim herein, and appear to include

medical information pertaining to other inmates who are not parties to his suit. 

4. Furthermore, Defendant objects to inclusion in the Protective Order of any documents or 

medical records of any inmate other than Plaintiff, or which might reveal their PHI.

5. As this Court noted in its previous Order, this case is Plaintiff’s “...individual lawsuit’ 

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 78 Filed 12/19/22 Page 1 of 3
2 

(not a class action) concerning the FDC’s failure to accommodate his disability...” [Doc. 74, pg. 

2, FN 1]

6. Accordingly, PHI of other inmates, or concerning generic orders or supplies not 

specific to Plaintiff, have no bearing on the issues herein.

7. Whether other inmates may have been exposed to the same health risks as Plaintiff alleges 

is irrelevant to Plaintiff’s individual claim. There is no need to include their PHI in the Protective

Order to be issued by this Court. 

8. Accordingly, Defendant objects to the following portions of the proposed Protective Order:

(a) Paragraph 4b. insofar as it refers to “...records of overall periodic orders, purchases, 

receipts, and issuance of specific types and sizes of diapers” other than pertain to 

Plaintiff himself. [Doc. 75-1, pg. 2] 

(b) Paragraph 4c in its entirety. [Id., pgs. 2, 3] 

(c) Paragraph 4e [Id., pg. 3] (there is no subsection 4d). (this section is also overly broad 

and vague.) 

9. Therefore, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court limit its HIPPA Qualified 

Protective Order pursuant to the objections noted herein. 

 Respectfully submitted,

ASHLEY MOODY 

ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ Joe Belitzky 

JOE BELITZKY

Senior Assistant Attorney General

Florida Bar No. 0217301 

Office of the Attorney General 

The Capitol, PL-01 

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 78 Filed 12/19/22 Page 2 of 3
3 

Telephone: (850) 414-3300 

Facsimile: (850) 488-4872 

Joe.belitzky@myfloridalegal.com 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed via CM/ECF

 on Dec. 19, 2022.

/s/ Joe Belitzky 

JOE BELITZKY

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 78 Filed 12/19/22 Page 3 of 3