REVISED December 19, 2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30982

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES, L.L.C., on behalf of its patients, physicians, 

and staff, doing business as Hope Medical Group for Women; JOHN DOE 1, 

Medical Doctor; JOHN DOE 2, Medical Doctor; JOHN DOE 3, Medical 

Doctor, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

REBEKAH GEE, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana 

Department of Health and Hospitals; JEFF LANDRY, in his official capacity 

as Attorney General of Louisiana; JAMES E. STEWART, SR., in his official 

capacity as District Attorney for Caddo Parish, 

 Defendants - Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:16-CV-444

Before HAYNES, GRAVES, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-30982 Document: 00515243451 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2019
No. 19-30982

2

Defendants-Appellants seek relief from the district court’s November 25, 

2019 Ruling and Order denying Defendants’ Motion for Limited Relief from the 

protective order designating the documents at issue, among others, as 

confidential and not subject to public disclosure. Plaintiffs-Appellees filed a 

motion to dismiss, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which is 

DENIED.

In connection with their filing in the United States Supreme Court in 

the related matter in which certiorari was recently granted, June Medical 

Services v. Gee, Nos. 18-1460, 18-1323 (U.S. Oct. 4, 2019) (“June I”), Defendants 

seek to submit as evidence three sealed documents and their attachments. 

Defendants further request that we nostra sponte unseal the documents at 

issue either in toto or for the limited purpose of filing with the Supreme Court. 

This court granted appellants’ motion to expedite this appeal based on the 

December 26 filing deadline in June I. Appellants have not identified which 

issues, if any, are not affected by that deadline, and we have only decided the 

issue of whether we should unseal the documents to facilitate their filing in 

the briefing of June I. On the showing made, we decline to undo the protective 

order solely in order to facilitate supplementing the record before the Supreme 

Court in June I. 

Although we acknowledge the overbroad nature of the district court’s 

protective order, see Protective Order, June Medical Services v. Gee, No. 3:16-

cv-00444-BAJ-RLB, (M.D. La. Feb. 22, 2018), our focus here is on the reason 

for the request to the district court, the denial of which is now before us: 

supplementing the record before the Supreme Court. The question of what 

documents, if any, the Supreme Court should consider in deciding June I is not 

for us to resolve. That decision is within the purview and prerogative of the 

Court. 

 Case: 19-30982 Document: 00515243451 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/19/2019
No. 19-30982

3

Accordingly, we AFFIRM, without prejudice, on that ground, noting that 

Defendants-Appellants maintain the right to request permission to 

supplement the June I record from the Supreme Court.

 Case: 19-30982 Document: 00515243451 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/19/2019