HORRY v. TRIPLETT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
PROTECTIVE ORDER
Defendants (former) Deputy Warden Thomas and Officer Triplett (collectively
“Defendants”) hereby submit this Proposed Protective Order relating to Plaintiff’s
request for and Defendants’ production under Court Order of the confidential Georgia
Department 	of 	Corrections 	(“GDC”) 	Policy 	226.01, 	entitled 	Searches, 	Security
Inspections, and Use of Permanent Logs, (hereinafter the “Policy”) in compliance and
accordance with the Court’s instructions during the December 5, 2025 Motion to
Compel Hearing, the Court’s December 5, 2025 Text Order [ECF No. 96], and the
Court’s January 30, 2026 Order [ECF No. 101]. The Court possesses the inherent
power to manage its docket and discovery. Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820, 826
(1996) (“[T]he District Court has its usual authority to manage discovery in a civil
suit, including the power to enter protective orders limiting discovery as the interests
of justice require.”) The Policy requested is protected by the “law enforcement
privilege” and has been designated as confidential and “contraband for offender[s] to
possess” by the GDC. [See ECF No. 94] Thus, Defendants’ Proposed Protective Order
clearly falls under the inherent authority of this Court to manage discovery and to
DARREL HORRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CERT OFFICER TRIPLETT, et al.
Defendants
Case No. 4:23-cv-123-CDL-AGH
Case 4:23-cv-00123-CDL-AGH Document 102 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 5

2
prevent or limit innate risks associated with the production of the Policy to Plaintiff,
a convicted felon.
Defendants seek a Protective Order with respect to the Policy, which is the
only document in Defendants’ possession that is responsive to Plaintiff’s Request for
a copy of the “LOP or Policy that gives instruction on how strip searches should be
done.” [ECF No. 84 at ¶ 1] Defendants objected to this Request because of the GDC
protected status of the Policy. On December 5, 2025, the Court ordered Defendants
to produce the Policy to the Court ex parte along with proposed redactions for the
Court’s consideration. Per the Court’s instructions, Defendants submitted complete
and redacted copies of the Policy to the Court in camera. In considering whether and
to 	what 	extent 	Plaintiff 	shall 	be 	permitted 	to 	review 	the 	Policy, 	Defendants
respectfully request that the Court adopt the terms proposed herein.
Defendants request that Plaintiff’s review of the Policy be strictly limited to
the final redacted version of the Policy, approved by the Court following the in camera
review. Defendants request that the Policy be filed and kept by the Court under seal.
Plaintiff shall be allowed access to the redacted version of the policy upon reasonable
request for purposes of preparing his response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment. Plaintiff shall not be permitted to possess any physical or digital copy of
the Policy (redacted or complete) as the Policy is classified by the GDC as contraband
for offenders. However, Plaintiff shall be permitted to prepare and retain notes on
the Policy. In the event that Plaintiff does retain notes on or reflecting the Policy,
possession of any and all such notes beyond the date of final determination in this
Case 4:23-cv-00123-CDL-AGH Document 102 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Case shall be considered the possession of unlawful contraband (equal to the Policy
itself), 	which 	shall 	result 	in 	appropriate 	repercussions, 	confiscation, 	and/or
destruction. Furthermore, upon reviewing the Policy, Plaintiff shall not disclose in
any manner whatsoever the Policy, or the contents thereof, to any person not acting
and participating as an attorney of record in this action.
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that the Court enter an Order adopting these
parameters and appropriately limiting Plaintiff’s review of the Policy and for any and
all further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted, this 3rd day of February, 2026.
PAGE, SCRANTOM, SPROUSE,
TUCKER & FORD, P.C.
By: /s/Julie D. Johnson
Julie D. Johnson
Ga. Bar No. 154102
jjohnson@pagescrantom.com
Guy H. Kenimer, Jr.
Ga. Bar No. 202497
gkenimer@pagescrantom.com
1111 Bay Avenue, Third Floor
Columbus, Georgia 31901
(706) 324-0251
By: /s/ Clifton C. Fay
Clifton C. Fay
Ga. Bar No. 256460
cfay@columbusga.org
Lucy T. Sheftall
P.O. Box 1340 	Ga. Bar No. 639813
Columbus, Georgia 31902 	lsheftall@columbusga.org
Counsel for Defendants
Case 4:23-cv-00123-CDL-AGH Document 102 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 5

4
ORDER
The 	Court, 	having 	reviewed 	the 	information 	contained 	in 	the 	Proposed
Protective Order completed and submitted by Defendants to this action in accordance
with the instructions provided by the Court during the December 5, 2025 Motion to
Compel Hearing, hereby adopts the Protective Order and makes it the order of the
Court.
SO ORDERED, this 4th day of February, 2026.
s/ Amelia G. Helmick
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:23-cv-00123-CDL-AGH Document 102 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 5

5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on the date indicated below, I emailed this Proposed
Protective Order to the Court as directed by the Court’s January 30, 2026 Order [ECF
No. 101] at columbus.ecf@gamd.uscourts.gov and served a true and correct copy of
the same on Plaintiff, by mail with postage pre-paid and addressed as follows:
Darrel Horry
Inmate No. 1003108776
Gwinnett County Prison
750 Hi Hope Rd.
Lawrenceville, GA 30046
Pro Se Plaintiff
This 3rd day of February, 2026.
/s/ Julie D. Johnson
Counsel for Defendants
Case 4:23-cv-00123-CDL-AGH Document 102 Filed 02/04/26 Page 5 of 5