You are on page 1of 8

Case 0:09-cv-00138-DWF-JJG Document 161 Filed 01/04/10 Page 1 of 8









Defendants Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, Asad Zaman, Asif Rahman, Mahrous

Kandil, Mona Elnahrawy, Moira Fahey, and Mohamed Farid (collectively the TiZA

Defendants unless otherwise indicated) submit the following Objections to the Protective

Order [Doc # 160]:


In preparation for the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference of December 10, 2009, the

parties submitted a Joint Rule 26 Report, including a proposed Protective Order. The

parties stipulated to all provisions of the proposed Protective Order, except as to the

scope of the definition of “Confidential” information. At the Rule 16 Conference, the

Court accepted oral argument on this issue, but also directed the parties to simultaneously

submit Letter Briefs on December 21, 2009. The TiZA Defendant’s Letter Brief [Doc #

158] and proposed Protective Order (filed with the Court on December 21, 2009, and

December 22, 2009, respectively) are hereby incorporated by reference.

Case 0:09-cv-00138-DWF-JJG Document 161 Filed 01/04/10 Page 2 of 8

As referenced above, the only item in dispute was the scope of what would be

defined as Confidential information – i.e., whether or not all information disclosed by the

TiZA Defendants would be designated as Confidential. The TiZA Defendants sought this

protection for good cause as result of repeated threats of brutal violence against TiZA and

its teachers, students and staff. Despite these threats, the ACLU and Commissioner

Seagren disagreed, stipulating only to inadequate protection for TiZA.

On December 28, 2009, Magistrate Judge Graham issued the Protective Order

[Doc. # 160]. The Order failed to incorporate the TiZA Defendants’ requested

protection, and instead directed each disclosing party to initially determine what

disclosed information should be protected as confidential. (See Protective Order ¶ 1.)

Further, although stipulated by all parties in recognition of the public parties’

compulsory state law obligations, the Court removed the Minnesota Government Data

Practices Act (DPA) as a classification of “Confidential” information. (See Protective

Order ¶ 1.) The Court further removed a stipulated provision permitting disclosure of

information that is “not public” under the DPA. (See Protective Order ¶ 2.)

Pursuant to Local Rule 72.2, the TiZA Defendants submit these timely Objections

to the District Court.


I. Standard of Review

“The standard of review applicable to an appeal of a magistrate judge’s order on a

non-dispositive issue is extremely deferential.” Dochniak v. Dominium Management

Services, Inc., 240 F.R.D. 451, 452 (D. Minn. 2006) (quoting Reko v. Creative

Case 0:09-cv-00138-DWF-JJG Document 161 Filed 01/04/10 Page 3 of 8

Promotions, Inc., 70 F.Supp.2d 1005, 1007 (D. Minn. 1999)). A court will reverse such

an order only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.

R. Civ. P. 72(a); D. Minn. LR 72.2(a). “The District Judge may also reconsider any

matter sua sponte.” D. Minn. LR 72.2(a).

II. “Confidential” Information Should Include All Information Disclosed by the

TiZA Defendants for their Safety and Protection From Threats of Violence

The TiZA Defendants object to the limited the scope of “Confidential”

information in the Protective Order and request that all documents disclosed by the TiZA

Defendants be confidential for the safety and protection of TiZA students, families and

staff. The Protective Order limits “Confidential” information to include:

[A]ny information within the ambit of Rule 26(c), including information

that, if publicly disclosed, may cause undue annoyance, embarrassment, or
oppression. It may also include information classified as “education
records” under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA);
information identifying Islamic Relief donors or Islamic Relief employees
who have no connection with TiZA or the Interested Organizations;
information relating to Islamic Relief finances; information relating to
TiZA students or parents of TiZA students who have no connection with
the Interested Organizations; and information relating to ACLU donors,
ACLU finances, or ACLU employees.

(Protective Order ¶ 1.)

The TiZA Defendants submitted overwhelming evidence that all documents they

disclose should be classified as “Confidential” as a result of the numerous and repeated

threats of violence against TiZA students, families and staff, including death threats,

bomb threats, and arson threats. At least one person threatened to start the school on fire

and “watch the children roast.” Another warned, “You are being watched.” And yet

another threat stated that “we will destroy you, your family and your country.”

Case 0:09-cv-00138-DWF-JJG Document 161 Filed 01/04/10 Page 4 of 8

Under the Protective Order, the TiZA Defendants are forced to speculate and

guess what information may prompt further threats of violence and further compromise

the safety of TiZA students, families and staff.1 Information that does not fall within the

ambit of the Protective Order as Confidential, although not evident upon initial review of

the document, may be used by other parties in unforeseen manners that create harm and

subject TiZA students, families and staff to further threats of violence and hate activity.

Whether the disclosure of information may cause harm or prompt further threats of

violence may not be obvious on the face of the document, but rather may derive from the

unforeseen manner in which it is used – the harm may precipitate from the use of the

document, as well as the document itself.

The unfortunate reality in this country is a widespread distrust of Muslims, and, in

many places, outright discrimination and hate. Here, the TiZA Defendants have provided

substantive information through the Affidavit of Asad Zaman, filed in conjunction with

the TiZA Defendants’ Letter Brief, showing an increase in hate-based communication

and harmful threats received by TiZA following negative media articles and statements

by the ACLU to the media involving this lawsuit. Allowing documents to be disclosed

without the full protection of confidentiality places the TiZA Defendants and TiZA

Community at greater risk of further threats and potential harm.

A further complicating factor involves circumstances under which disagreement may
arise among the TiZA Defendants as to what information should be designated as
confidential as documents are reviewed for joint production by the TiZA Defendants.
This factor further supports protecting all documents as confidential.

Case 0:09-cv-00138-DWF-JJG Document 161 Filed 01/04/10 Page 5 of 8

The TiZA Defendants’ reasonable request seeks only to recognize the need to

protect the TiZA community from vicious harassment and potential violence, and allow

TiZA to focus on its educational obligations. The parties will suffer no prejudice as

TiZA-disclosed documents may still be used at will in this litigation; the only restriction

is the use of such information for purposes other than this case. Further, any party may

challenge a confidentiality designation. Lastly, if any person -- party or non-party alike --

desires any TiZA data, a simple request under the DPA to TiZA is available outside of

this case.

The weight of the evidence supports a finding of good cause for designating all

documents disclosed by the TiZA Defendants as Confidential. This arrangement will

protect the TiZA Defendants from threats of harm, but will not inhibit the parties’ from

asserting their rights in this case. The DPA remains available to the public seeking TiZA


III. Stipulated Provisions of the Protective Order Were Removed Without Notice

The TiZA Defendants object to the Court’s removal of certain provisions of the

Protective Order which were stipulated to and agreed upon by the parties. Specifically,

the parties stipulated that “Confidential” information includes information classified as

“not public” under the DPA. (See Stipulation for Disclosure and Protective Order

submitted by TiZA Defendant’s on December 22, 2009 ¶1.) The parties further

stipulated that the disclosure of information classified as “not public” under the DPA

would be permitted in this matter. (Id. ¶ 2.)

Case 0:09-cv-00138-DWF-JJG Document 161 Filed 01/04/10 Page 6 of 8

The Court, sua sponte, removed these stipulated provisions from the Protective

Order without affording the parties the opportunity to be heard or brief the issue. By sua

sponte removing stipulated provisions without notice, the parties were not afforded the

procedural protections afforded by Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

See In re Remington Arms Co., Inc., 952 F.2d 1029, 1032 (8th Cir. 1991) (district court

abused its discretion by ordering discovery of materials claimed to involve trade secret,

without affording party resisting discovery opportunity to establish that materials

constituted trade secret); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

The parties were not afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the

removal of stipulated provisions, and thus, the TiZA Defendants object to the removal of

these provisions, absent the opportunity to be heard and/or brief the issue.

IV. Application of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act

Removal of the above-noted stipulated provisions ignores the TiZA and

Commissioner Alice Seagren’s duties and obligations under the DPA. In the Court’s

Memorandum accompanying the Protective Order, the Court expressly refused to adopt

the DPA into the Protective Order, stating “[t]he DPA . . . does not confer a privilege

under federal law. For this reason, this Court will not adopt the DPA into the protective

order.” (Mem. p. 9.) Federal courts, however, “may be as inventive as the necessities of a

particular case require in order to achieve the benign purposes of the rule.” 8 CHARLES


PROCEDURE: CIVIL 2D § 2036 (1994); see also Northbrook Digital, LLC v. Vendio

Services, Inc., 625 F.Supp. 2d 728, 757 (D.Minn. 2008) (“A court has broad discretion to

Case 0:09-cv-00138-DWF-JJG Document 161 Filed 01/04/10 Page 7 of 8

fashion a protective order, and the general public right of access does not reach pretrial

discovery.”) (citing Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36-37, 104 S.Ct. 2199,

81 L.Ed.2d 17 (1984)).

The Protective Order disregards TiZA’s legal duties under the DPA, a violation of

which is a misdemeanor under state law. See Minn. Stat. § 13.09 (2009). A violation of

the DPA further subjects TiZA employees to suspension or termination. Id. The

effective result of the Protective Order places TiZA and its employees on the horns of a

dilemma: either (1) comply with the Protective Order and violate the DPA, or (2) comply

with the DPA and violate a federal court order. The parties’ proposed Protective Order

eliminated this concern. For this reason, the TiZA Defendants respectfully request this

Court recognize the TiZA Defendants’ legal obligations under the DPA, and return the

stipulated language to the parties’ proposed Protective Order.

Case 0:09-cv-00138-DWF-JJG Document 161 Filed 01/04/10 Page 8 of 8


The TiZA Defendants respectfully request this Court amend the Protective Order

to classify all documents produced by the TiZA Defendants as Confidential. This is a

matter of extreme importance for the safety and protection of the TiZA Defendants and

TiZA students, families and staff. The TiZA Defendants further request the parties’

stipulated provisions regarding the DPA be returned to the Protective Order, or,

alternatively, the parties be afforded the opportunity to brief and be heard on the issue.

Respectfully submitted,


January 4, 2010 /s/ Mark R. Azman

Dated: ______________________ _________________________________
Shamus P. O’Meara (#221454)
Mark R. Azman (#237061)
7401 Metro Boulevard, Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55439-3034
(952) 831-6544



You might also like