6:18-cv-00261-RAW Document 60 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/19 Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
(1) JAMES LEGROS, SR. and
(2) JACQUELINE MILIOTO, as
next friend to D.M., a minor, as
next of kin of JAMES LEGROS,
JR., deceased,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 18-CV-261-RAW
vs.
(1) BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS FOR
CHOCTAW COUNTY; et al..
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF JACQUELINE MILIOTO’S RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Plaintiff, Jacqueline Milioto, as next friend to D.M., a minor, as
next of kin of James Legros, Jr., deceased, responds in opposition to
Defendant Board of County Commissioners for Choctaw County’s Motion
for Protective Order. In support of Plaintiff Milioto’s response, Plaintiff
states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This case pertains to the arrest, detention, and subsequent death of
James Legros, Jr. after he was arrested by the Choctaw County
Sheriff’s Department on October 25, 2016.

 6:18-cv-00261-RAW Document 60 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/19 Page 2 of 13

2. Legros, Jr. was arrested because he appeared to be intoxicated;
thereafter, he was transported to the Choctaw County Jail.
3. During Legros, Jr.’s detainment at the Choctaw County Jail, he
displayed paranoid and erratic behavior.
4. Despite Legros, Jr.’s continued display of paranoia and erratic
behavior for four (4) days—Choctaw County Sheriffs continued to
hold him in custody without any form of medical evaluation or
treatment.
5. On October 29, 2016, James Legros, Jr. was found hanging from a
blanket in his cell, unresponsive, and was pronounced dead shortly
thereafter.
6. Legros, Jr. had several unexplained abrasions and contusions on his
head and body. It is unclear how often, if ever, Choctaw County
Sheriffs checked in on Legros, Jr.—as is required by Oklahoma Jail
Standards when dealing with an individual who appears “to have a
significant medical or psychiatric problem, or who may be a suicide
risk…” See Okla. Admin. Code 310:670-5-8.
7. In an effort to discover the circumstances surrounding Legros, Jr.’s
untimely death, and any steps or measures taken by Choctaw County
Sheriff’s Department to ensure Legros, Jr.’s safety, Plaintiff Milioto

2

 6:18-cv-00261-RAW Document 60 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/19 Page 3 of 13

sought to obtain the records that are the subject of this Motion for
Protective Order.
8. Plaintiff Milioto seeks the release of any video and audio recordings
or photographs made or taken within the Choctaw County Jail while
James Legros, Jr. was in custody, as well as the Policies and
Procedures of the Choctaw County Jail or Choctaw County Sheriff’s
Office as they relate to the operation of the jail.
9. Plaintiff agreed to a protective order regarding:
a. performance appraisals or disciplinary records related to
non-parties,
b. social security numbers and dates of birth of any persons,
c. unlisted home addresses or unlisted home phone
numbers,
d. educational records of any persons to the extent such
records are covered by 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(4),
e. personnel files of jail or sheriff’s office employees,
f. and personal contact information of present and former
employees, officers, or agents of the Defendants.
10.

Plaintiff does not agree to a protective order regarding: jail

policies, photographs, and surveillance video.
11.

On February 20, 2018 the State District Court Judge entered a

Court Minute for “Counsel to Submit Order.”
12.

Plaintiff believes the State District Court Judge was requesting an

Order pertaining another cause-of-action involving the same counsel
and Defendant. The other cause-of-action is very similar—on the

3

 6:18-cv-00261-RAW Document 60 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/19 Page 4 of 13

account, both claims allege abuse by Defendant’s employees and jail
surveillance footage. Counsel discussed the other cause of action at
the same hearing where this Protective Order was discussed, and
there was an agreed order to be submitted in the other cause of action.
13.

Defendant’s acknowledged to Plaintiff’s counsel that the State

District Court Judge may have been confused by Defendant’s attempt
to submit Defendant’s version of the Protective Order, without
explanation that Plaintiff still objected to it.
14.

After the State Court filed Defendant’s Protective Order, Plaintiff

filed a ‘Motion to Clarify’ whether the Protective Order was filed in
confusion of similar litigation.
15.

Thereafter, Defendant provided the requested video, photographs,

and policies to Plaintiff in agreement that the provided documents
would be protected until the State Court ruled on the Motion to
Clarify.
16.

On August 1, 2018, Plaintiff removed this cause-of-action to

Federal Court.
17.

Subsequently, both parties agreed this Court would be the proper

location to litigate Defendant’s Protective Order.
18.

There is no dispute that the requested videos and documents are

discoverable in this litigation, inasmuch as they are relevant and

4

 6:18-cv-00261-RAW Document 60 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/19 Page 5 of 13

reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. 12 O.S. §
3226(B)(1).
19.

The issue is whether, under Oklahoma law, citizens are vested

with the inherent right to know and be fully informed about their
government, and whether government encounters with its citizens
should be transparent and available to the public—rather than
cloaked in secrecy.
I.

DEFENDANT FAILS TO MEET ITS BURDEN TO SHOW
RECORDS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE UNDER
THE OKLAHOMA OPEN RECORDS ACT.
The Oklahoma Open Records Act (“O.R.A.”) governs the public

disclosure of records which are held by governmental entities in
Oklahoma. It is well established public policy of the State of Oklahoma
that the people of Oklahoma are vested with the inherent right to know
and be fully informed about their government. See Oklahoma Ass'n of

Broadcasters, Inc. v. City of Norman, Norman Police Department, 2016
OK 119, 390 P.3d 689 (Okla. 2016). The Oklahoma Supreme Court
acknowledged the purpose of the O.R.A. is “to ensure and facilitate the
public's right of access to and review of government records so they may
efficiently and intelligently exercise their inherent political power.” 51
O.S. § 24A.2; Oklahoma Ass'n of Broadcasters, Inc., 2016 OK 119, ¶ 15.
Furthermore, “[b]ecause of the strong public policy allowing public

5

 6:18-cv-00261-RAW Document 60 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/19 Page 6 of 13

access to governmental records, we must construe the Act's provisions to
allow access unless an exception clearly applies, and the burden is on the
public agency seeking to deny access to show a record should not be made
available.” Id. (citing Citizens Against Taxpayer Abuse, Inc. v. City of

Oklahoma City, 2003 OK 65, ¶ 12, 73 P.3d 871, 875) (emphasis added).
Defendant fails to name an exception and clearly articulate why
an exception applies. After a long recitation of procedural history,
Defendant dedicates only one (1) paragraph toward meeting its burden
of showing that the requested records are not subject to public disclosure.
(See Defendants Motion for Protective Order at ¶ 18.) Moreover,
Defendant fails to cite a single case or statute. Rather, Defendant baldly
purports that the surveillance footage and records should be placed
under protective order because the they “pose a security risk to the safety
of the inmates, employees and citizens of Choctaw County.”
Defendant’s assertations are unfounded and unsupported by law.
Defendant fails to even identify the statutory exception applicable to
their Protection Order. Furthermore, Defendant fails to clearly
articulate how such an exception would apply—or even explain how the
Protective Order is necessary for the safety the “inmates, employees[,]
and citizens of Choctaw County.” Id. (emphasis added.) Defendant seems
to base their argument entirely upon the possibility that the surveillance

6

 6:18-cv-00261-RAW Document 60 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/19 Page 7 of 13

footage and records might end up on the internet—and therefore,
Defendant claims, this is somehow dangerous to the public. (See
Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order, ¶ 18). But, Defendant fails to
connect the two claims.
Defendant’s failure is likely because such claims are unfounded
and contrary to common jail/prison practices—and their own practice.
(See Ex. 1, photos of various county jails and correctional facilities in
Oklahoma) (See Ex. 2, photos pulled from a news video shot inside
Choctaw County Jail.)
II.

VARIOUS COUNTY JAILS, INCLUDING CHOCTAW
COUNTY, HAVE PREVIOUSLY RELEASED SIMILAR
RECORDS WITH NO “SECURITY RISK” POSED
Defendant’s sole rational for seeking a protective order on

Plaintiff’s requested records is because “video, recordings and
photographs taken within the jail pose a security risk to the safety of the
inmates, employees and citizens of Choctaw County.” (See Defendant’s
Motion for Protective Order, ¶ 18).
However, this claim is wholly unfounded, as no “security risk” has
prevented a multitude of other Oklahoma county jails from releasing
video, photographs, and even allowing news crews to come within the
jails or correctional facilities to film video footage that is to be broadcast
on the news. (Ex. 1). Attached to this response are photographs from the

7

 6:18-cv-00261-RAW Document 60 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/19 Page 8 of 13

Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlister, Oklahoma; Oklahoma
County Jail; Cherokee County Jail, Tulsa County Jail; Garvin County
Jail; and the Joseph Harp Correctional Center in Lexington, Oklahoma.
(See Ex. 1). These results are from a cursory search on YouTube and
Google—meaning it is nothing novel to have jails release materials that
are substantially similar to what Plaintiff Milioto is requesting.
To demonstrate the extent to which previous facilities have
released this information voluntarily, without the worry of a “security
risk”, the Oklahoma State Penitentiary allowed a one (1) hour
documentary to be made. The State Penitentiary allowed the camera
crew and others access to the interior aspects of the penitentiary. This
documentary was made as recently as 2016. The documentary has since
been posed on the internet.1 Additionally, a NewsOK article provides a
panoramic view of a variety of rooms within the penitentiary.2 Anyone
with internet access may view Death Row, the Rotunda, or even the
Death Chamber. This article also posts a plethora of photographs from
inside the facility. (See Ex. 1).
The Oklahoma County Jail allowed KOCO News 5 Channel in
Oklahoma City to tour its facility after the Oklahoma County Jail earned

1
2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXE73dJ4DeA
http://newsok.com/article/3630640
8

 6:18-cv-00261-RAW Document 60 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/19 Page 9 of 13

a

national

accreditation.3

The

referenced

video

shows

the

communication center of the county jail, with all its security camera
locations and angles, as well as the cell block, common area, and
individual cells.

The Oklahoma County Jail likely faces far more

“security risks” than the Choctaw County Jail—yet, Oklahoma County
Jail did not deny a news crew access to its facilities.
The Garvin County Jail released internal security footage of an
inmate escaping in April 2017, after which the video footage was posted
on the internet and broadcast on the evening news.4 This video not only
shows the interior of the jail, but it could essentially be used as a “howto” guide for others contemplating the release of an inmate by force.
The Defendants state there is a concern posed by the release of the
requested records. However, this concern did not prevent the Garvin
County Jail from releasing such video footage, despite the fact that an
inmate had already escaped from that facility. As part of different news
stories and exposés, access to video footage or photographs of the Tulsa
County Jail have been voluntarily permitted, as well. (See Ex. 1).
The jail surveillance footage showing the beating of Daniel Bosh
by detention officers at the Cherokee County Detention Center is readily

3
4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAm2JG8L9-M&feature=youtu.be
http://kfor.com/2017/04/03/police-release-video-from-garvin-county-inmates-escape/
9

 6:18-cv-00261-RAW Document 60 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/19 Page 10 of 13

available for viewing online.5 This video, and the beating it depicted,
formed the basis of Bosh v. Cherokee Cty. Bldg. Auth., wherein the
Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized a cause of action under the
Oklahoma Constitution for excessive force. 2013 OK 9, ¶ 3, 305 P.3d 994,
996, as corrected (June 28, 2013)(“Nevertheless, video surveillance of the
events captured images of one of the jailers, the defendant Gordon
Chronister, Jr. (Chronister), approaching the detainee and grabbing him
behind his back.”).
Finally, and most damaging to Defendant’s position, Defendant
itself voluntarily released video footage of the inside of its facilities,
including but not limited to the communications center, surveillance
system, Sheriff Park’s office, and holding cells.6 (Ex. 2). The story
involved the Oklahoma Department of Correction’s cancelling of its
contract with Choctaw County Jail, and how the loss of funding would
affect the jail. There, Defendant voluntarily allowed extensive access to
the jail. This video was release in Spring of 2017, just months after
Legros, Jr. hung himself in the same jail.

5

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6e9_1323980809
http://www.kxii.com/content/news/State-inmates-to-be-removed-from-10-county-jailsincluding-the-Choctaw-County-Jail-415821733.html
6

10

 6:18-cv-00261-RAW Document 60 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/19 Page 11 of 13

Defendant is speaking from both sides of its mouth: When the
footage appears favorable to Defendant (i.e., releasing video to secure
funding after a lost D.O.C. contract), then Defendant claims no “security
risk.” However, when a person dies in its jail, Defendant feigns a
“security risk” to prevent open citizen access to the very jail, it so willing
showed footage of just months later. This is not how transparent
government works. See Oklahoma Ass'n of Broadcasters, Inc., 2016 OK
119.
When there is so much evidence of county jails—including
Choctaw County which voluntarily allowed the news media to post
photographs and videos to the internet—Defendant’s arguments for a
protective order does not hold water. There are no “security risks” posed
by the release of the requested records, nor is there any valid reason to
require such disclosure to be subject to a protective order.
The law requires Defendant’s Protective Order identify an
exception and show how the exception clearly applies. Defendants failed
to meet their burden. The bald claims that the video and documents
would reach the internet and somehow pose a risk to others are not only
unsupported, but also contrary common practice throughout Oklahoma.

11

 6:18-cv-00261-RAW Document 60 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/19 Page 12 of 13

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff made these requests for records in an effort to discover
the truth of the circumstances surrounding James Legros, Jr.’s death,
what was done to prevent it, and what should have been done. Along
with Plaintiff, the public has an interest in and a right to the continued
and good faith transparency of its government. The refusal to release
these records would do nothing but undercut the relationship between
law enforcement and the citizens they protect.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully
requests the Court to deny Defendant Board of County Commissioners
for Choctaw County’s Motion for Protective Order, except for those
records Plaintiffs’ counsel has already agreed to being produced under
Protective Order.
Respectfully submitted,
LAIRD, HAMMONS, LAIRD, PLLC

s/ Jason Hicks
Chris Hammons, OBA # 20233
Jason M. Hicks, OBA # 22176
1332 S.W. 89th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73159
Telephone: (405) 703-4567
Facsimile: (405) 703-4061
E-mail: chris@lhllaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

12

 6:18-cv-00261-RAW Document 60 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/19 Page 13 of 13

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that on January 15, 2019, I electronically transmitted
the foregoing document to the Clerk of Court using the ECF system for filing
and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following ECF
registrants:
Stephen L. Geries, OBA #19101
COLLINS, ZORN & WAGNER, P.C.
428 N.E. 50th Street, Second Floor
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Telephone: (405) 524-2070
Facsimile: (405) 524-2078

Attorney For Defendants Board of County
Commissioners for Choctaw County,
Zach Dillishaw, Stewart Stanfield,
Jeffery Epley and Terry Park, in their
individual capacity.
Jessica L. Dark, OBA No. 31236
Robert S. Lafferrandre, OBA No. 11897
Randall J. Wood, OBA 10531
PIERCE COUCH HENDRICKSON BAYSINGER
& GREEN, LLP
1109 North Francis Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73106
Phone: 405-235-1611
Fax: 405-235-2904
Email: jdark@piercecouch.com

Attorneys for Defendants Schonna Smith and
Debora Clay
James L. Gibbs, II, OBA No. 15689
Goolsby, Proctor, Heefner & Gibbs, P.C.
701 N. Broadway Ave, Suite 400
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: 405 524-2400
Fax: 405-525-6004
Email: jgibbs@gphglaw.com

Attorney for Defendant Edna Casey

s/ Jason Hicks