1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

WENDY TIPPITT, individually and as 

administrator of the estate of Timothy 

Michael Randall,

Plaintiff,

v. 

SHANE IVERSEN, UNKNOWN 

OFFICER, & RUSK COUNTY,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23-CV-00515-JDKJDL

ORDER

Before the court is Defendant Iversen’s motion for protective order (Doc. No. 29) 

concerning police dash-camera and body-camera footage of the arrest and shooting of Decedent 

Timothy Randall by Defendant Iversen. The court held a hearing on the motion on June 20, 2024. 

Upon consideration, Defendant Iversen’s motion for protective order (Doc. No. 29) is DENIED. 

BACKGROUND 

I. Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order

Defendant’s motion seeks to modify the court’s standard protective order as follows:

1. Designating any body or dash-cam videos of the incident, including photos,

screenshots, and any other documents/recordings marked as confidential by the

parties as “confidential information” subject to the protective order.

2. A statement that the potential security risk to the parties and others is a basis for

potential harm from public disclosure.

3. Defining “protected documents” to include the video recordings of the incident.

4. Including expert witnesses and investigators in the definition of qualified persons

to whom the protected materials may be disclosed.

Case 6:23-cv-00515-JDK-JDL Document 44 Filed 06/24/24 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 207
2

5. Requiring that exhibits to depositions or filings which contain protected materials

be subject to the protective order and be filed under seal.

6. Prohibiting the posting of protected materials on the internet.

(Doc. No. 29, at 5–6.) 

In support of the motion, Defendant asserts that if a protective order is not put in place 

prohibiting the dissemination of the body and dash-cam videos, Plaintiff will be able to upload the 

videos to the internet. The images will be instantly visible to anyone in the world and can be 

manipulated, shared, and commented on, including personally identifiable information of the 

parties and others in the video. (Doc. No. 29, at 1–2.) Defendant asserts that public disclosure 

poses the risk of creating an unfair trial and prejudicing potential jurors who see the video online 

or through local news media. Id. at 3. Further, Defendant argues that public disclosure poses a 

serious risk to officer safety, as a member of the public might decide to take the law into their own 

hands. (Doc. No. 38, at 2.) Defendant argues that the public’s interest in access is already satisfied 

without the videos because local news media have already reported on Mr. Randall’s death and 

Rusk County has filed a publicly available death report of the incident with the Texas Attorney 

General. (Doc. No. 29, at 4.) Last, Defendant contends Plaintiff would not be burdened by the 

requested protective order because Plaintiff would not be prohibited from using the videos for any 

litigation-related purposes. Id. at 4–5.

II. Plaintiff’s Response

In response, Plaintiff contends that the public has an interest in access to judicial records,

and the videos that Defendant seeks to suppress are of heightened public interest because the 

videos depict Defendant acting pursuant to his duties as a public official. (Doc. No. 35, at 3.) 

Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s concerns about the potential harm from disclosure because 

Defendant has not presented any specific facts about threats to Defendant Iversen personally. Id. 

Case 6:23-cv-00515-JDK-JDL Document 44 Filed 06/24/24 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 208
3

Plaintiff argues that because the videos show members of law enforcement acting in their official 

capacity, the public’s interest in scrutinizing their conduct outweighs their privacy concerns. Id. at 

4. Further, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not offered any evidence that making the videos

publicly available will prejudice the jury pool, and any risk of prejudicing the jury pool is 

outweighed by the public’s interest in access to judicial records. Id.

ANALYSIS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) states that a court “may, for good cause, issue an 

order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden 

or expense.” However, Defendant moves not only for a protective order, but also to have all 

protected materials as defined in the protective order—including the videos—filed under seal. The 

sealing of documents implicates the common law right of access to judicial proceedings and 

records. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 599, 597–98 (1978); S.E.C. v. Van 

Waeyenberghe et al., 990 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir. 1993). This right creates a “strong presumption 

that all trial proceedings should be subject to scrutiny by the public.” United States v. Holy Land 

Found. For Relief & Dev., 624 F.3d 685, 690 (5th Cir. 2010). Further, the public has a particular 

interest in access to cases involving matters of public safety and use of force policies of local law 

enforcement. Carnaby v. City of Houston, No. CIV.A.4:08-CV-1366, 2008 WL 4546606, at *2 

(S.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2008); see also Gutierrez v. Benavides, 292 F.R.D. 401, 404–05 (S.D. Tex. 

2013).

However, the public’s common law right is not absolute. It is the court’s duty to balance 

the public’s common law right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure. Nixon, 435 

U.S. at 602; Belo Broad . Corp. v. Clark , 654 F.2d 423, 432 (5th Cir. 1981). A showing of “good 

cause” is not sufficient to warrant the automatic sealing of court documents; “[t]he party seeking 

to seal court documents has the burden of establishing that the presumption of public records 

Case 6:23-cv-00515-JDK-JDL Document 44 Filed 06/24/24 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 209
4

should be overcome.” Trover Grp., Inc. v. Dedicated Micros USA, No. 2:13-CV-01047-WCB, 

2015 WL 1406259, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2015). To make this showing, the movant “must 

articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general 

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 

understanding the judicial process.” Id. (citing In re Terra Int’l, Inc., 134 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir.

1998)).

Defendant first argues that a protective order is necessary to protect Defendant Iversen’s 

safety. However, Defendant has not provided any specific examples through affidavits, online 

commentary, or other means that there is or has been a viable threat to Defendant Iversen’s safety 

in this case. At the hearing, defense counsel conceded that, to date, they were unaware of any 

specific threats to Defendant Iversen. Thus, the potential threat to safety in this case is speculative 

and no greater than any case where an officer is involved in a civilian casualty. See In re Terra

Int’l, Inc., 134 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 1998) (a movant must provide particularized evidence of a 

compelling need that outweighs the public’s common law right to disclosure). Furthermore, 

Defendant has not provided the court with any caselaw authority where the court considered the 

issue of whether to seal a use of force video such as the ones in question and decided in favor of 

sealing. At the hearing, defense counsel referenced Hanzich IV v. Nacagdoches County et al, 9:23-

cv-00087 as one such case. However, in Hanzich, the district court issued a protective order and

order to seal court records concerning security footage from the Nacogdoches County Jail because 

there was an agreement by the parties to enter such a protective order. See Doc. Nos. 23, 24. The 

court therefore did not consider the merits of the legal argument presented here.

Case 6:23-cv-00515-JDK-JDL Document 44 Filed 06/24/24 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 210
5

Moreover, a review of relevant cases suggests that courts in this circuit typically favor the 

disclosure of these types of materials. In Carnaby v. City of Houston, the court considered the 

defendants’ motion to seal certain audio recordings concerning the fatal shooting of the plaintiff 

by Houston police. See Carnaby v. City of Houston, No. CIV.A.4:08-CV-1366, 2008 WL 4546606, 

at *1 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2008). There, the court concluded that sealing was inappropriate because 

(1) the defendants had not shown that they would be adversely affected by the disclosure, and (2)

the public’s interest in matters of public safety outweighed the defendant’s interest in freedom 

from a prejudicial public atmosphere. See id. at *1–2. Similarly, in Winkley v. Hancock County,

Mississippi, the court considered defendant’s motion to seal the dash cam video footage of the 

fatal shooting of the plaintiff by local sheriff’s deputies. Winkley v. Hancock Cnty., Mississippi, 

No. CV 1:23-213-LG-RPM, 2023 WL 8417851, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 4, 2023). There, the court 

concluded that “the video footage is of significance to the public’s interest in the activity of law 

enforcement and its use of force” and denied the motion to seal. Id.

Here, the public has a heightened interest in these proceedings because Defendant Iversen

was acting as a public official when he shot and killed Mr. Randall. See Carnaby, 2008 WL 

4546606, at *1–2; Winkley, 2023 WL 8417851, at *1. Further, the incident occurred on a 

residential public street and was recorded with cameras paid for by public funds and issued to 

Iversen for a public purpose. Harmon v. City of Santa Clara, 323 F.R.D. 617, 625 (N.D. Cal. 2018) 

(“[l]aw enforcement’s use of body cameras is an issue of importance to the public generally, and 

to public health and safety specifically.”) (alteration in original) (internal quotes and citation 

omitted). There is no doubt that the contents of the videos are sensitive in nature. But the mere fact 

that the videos are sensitive or that disclosure may alter public perception of the case generally, 

Case 6:23-cv-00515-JDK-JDL Document 44 Filed 06/24/24 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 211
6

are not, by themselves, sufficient grounds for a protective order. See Carnaby, 2008 WL 4546606, 

at *1.

As to Defendant’s argument that a protective order is necessary to ensure a fair trial and to 

avoid tainting potential jurors, the court again finds this concern to be no more than a generalized 

concern that would arise in any case of this nature. Indeed, even in cases where there is media 

attention, courts are routinely able to select fair and impartial juries. See Shingara v. Skiles, 420 

F.3d 301, 307 (3d Cir. 2005) (“[w]e ordinarily are confident that a district court will be able to

select a fair and impartial jury in cases even where there has been pre-trial media attention to the 

case and we see no reason to believe that this case would present an exception to the usual case.”).

Defendant’s assertions of potential taint to the jury pool are speculative and conclusory. In addition 

to Rusk County, the Eastern District of Texas pulls jurors from Anderson County, Gregg County, 

Henderson County, Cherokee County, Panola County, Rains County, Smith County, Wood

County, and Van Zandt County. The court is confident that specific instances of juror bias can be 

resolved at trial as they normally would be. See Shingara, 420 F.3d at 307 (“[D]efendants did not 

present any evidence to support their argument, drawn from the information already published, 

that there will be difficulty selecting a jury in this case or evidence that if additional information 

is published there would be such difficulty.”).

Last, Defendant suggests that the public’s interest in access is already satisfied because the 

local news media have reported on the shooting and there is a publicly available report of the 

incident. However, Defendant offers no authority in support of this proposition. Further, the 

reporting the court is aware of is not fully consistent with what is shown in the video. See Police: 

Rusk County Deputy Fatally Shot Unarmed Man Believing He Tried to Hide Illegal Drugs, CBS 

19 (Nov. 3, 2022, 12:41 PM), https://www.cbs19.tv/article/news/local/documents-rusk-countyCase 6:23-cv-00515-JDK-JDL Document 44 Filed 06/24/24 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 212
7

deputy-fatally-shot-unarmed-man-struggle-believing-he-tried-to-hide-illegal-drugs/501-

441d0655-e489-4a31-8d50-7345b161f8df. Because a version of the events that does not fully 

describe what occurred during the incident in question has already been reported to the media, the 

public’s interest in this case is enhanced. 

In sum, Defendant has not provided any authority or specific evidence showing that, in the 

context of this case, the concerns raised here should overcome the presumption favoring 

disclosure. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion (Doc. No. 29) is DENIED. The parties shall meet 

and confer and submit a proposed protective order, consistent with the rulings herein, to the court 

by June 28, 2024. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24th day of June, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00515-JDK-JDL Document 44 Filed 06/24/24 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 213