Lakenya McGhee-Twilley v. CoreCivic of Tenn., LLC
Court
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Importance
48%
Case Summary
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0287n.06 Case No. 24-5707 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jun 09, 2025 ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk LAKENYA MCGHEE-TWILLEY, ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC, ) TENNESSEE Defendant, ) ) OPINION JASON LAWSON; TENNESSEE ) DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, ) Movants-Appellees ) Before: CLAY, READLER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. READLER, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which DAVIS, J., concurred. CLAY, CLAY, J. (pp. 15–17), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment in part. CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. CoreCivic of Tennessee operates a series of private prisons, the conditions at which have been the subject of numerous lawsuits. At times, those disputes have taken on an ancillary purpose. Following settlement of the suits, various parties have sought access to “documents . . . produced during discovery” in the now-settled litigation. Grae v. Corr. Corp. of Am. (Grae I), 57 F.4th 567, 568 (6th Cir. 2023) (order) (noting the “quest for documents” related to CoreCivic’s operations); Grae v. Corr. Corp. of Am. (Grae No. 24-5707, McGhee-Twilley v. CoreCivic of Tenn., LLC II), 134 F.4th 927, 930–31 (6th Cir. 2025) (describing intervenor’s successful appeal regarding its attempt to obtain similar documents). Today’s case echoes these themes. Having settled her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against CoreCivic, Lakenya McGhee-Twilley now asks that we revisit confidentiality designations on discovery documents third parties produced during the litigation. Because McGhee-Twilley’s settlement mooted any case or controversy, we dismiss. I. CoreCivic’s business is running private prisons. The company’s purported failure to properly staff those facilities has inspired lawsuits from disillusioned shareholders as well as family members of affected inmates. See, e.g., Grae I, 57 F.4th at 568–69. This case falls into the latter category. McGhee-Twilley’s son was murdered by fellow inmates at CoreCivic’s Trousdale Turner Correctional Center, a tragedy she attributes to severe understaffing at the Center. On that basis, she sued CoreCivic under § 1983 and state law. She later settled with the company, stipulating to the dismissal of her complaint with prejudice. Despite that settlement, McGhee-Twilley aims to keep her lawsuit alive, now as an effort to make public documents produced during discovery by two non-parties: District Attorney Jason Lawson and the Tennessee Department of Corrections (TDOC). To understand this dispute’s origins, turn back to a protective order entered by the district court by agreement of both McGhee- Twilley and CoreCivic. The order authorized anyone who produced a document during discovery to mark it as “CONFIDENTIAL,” at which point it presumptively qualified for protection under Rule 26(c). See Agreed Protective Order Against Unauthorized Use or Disclosure of Confidential Info. 1, R. 34, PageID#1939; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 2 No. 24-5707, McGhee-Twilley v. CoreCivic of Tenn., LLC U.S. 20, 36 (1984) (noting trial court’s “broad discretion” to determine the “degree of protection” afforded documents during “the discovery process”). A party who disagreed with such a confidentiality designation could use ordinary “discovery dispute . . . procedures” to contest before the magistrate judge the appropriateness of Rule 26(c) protection. Agreed Protective Order, supra, at 6, R. 34, PageID#1944. Utilizing those procedures, McGhee-Twilley challenged the confidentiality of documents Lawson and TDOC produced under subpoena. But before that issue could be resolved, McGhee- Twilley and CoreCivic notified the court that they had settled McGhee-Twilley’s suit, with the parties agreeing to an across-the-board dismissal. The district court accordingly deemed the cas
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0287n.06
Case No. 24-5707
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED
Jun 09, 2025
) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk
LAKENYA MCGHEE-TWILLEY, ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC, ) TENNESSEE Defendant, ) ) OPINION JASON LAWSON; TENNESSEE ) DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, ) Movants-Appellees )
Before: CLAY, READLER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
READLER, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which DAVIS, J., concurred. CLAY,
CLAY, J. (pp. 15–17), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment in part.
CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. CoreCivic of Tennessee operates a series of
private prisons, the conditions at which have been the subject of numerous lawsuits. At times,
those disputes have taken on an ancillary purpose. Following settlement of the suits, various
parties have sought access to “documents . . . produced during discovery” in the now-settled
litigation. Grae v. Corr. Corp. of Am. (Grae I), 57 F.4th 567, 568 (6th Cir. 2023) (order) (noting
the “quest for documents” related to CoreCivic’s operations); Grae v. Corr. Corp. of Am. (Grae No. 24-5707, McGhee-Twilley v. CoreCivic of Tenn., LLC
II), 134 F.4th 927, 930–31 (6th Cir. 2025) (describing intervenor’s successful appeal regarding its
attempt to obtain similar documents).
Today’s case echoes these themes. Having settled her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against
CoreCivic, Lakenya McGhee-Twilley now asks that we revisit confidentiality designations on
discovery documents third parties produced during the litigation. Because McGhee-Twilley’s
settlement mooted any case or controversy, we dismiss.
I.
CoreCivic’s business is running private prisons. The company’s purported failure to
properly staff those facilities has inspired lawsuits from disillusioned shareholders as well as
family members of affected inmates. See, e.g., Grae I, 57 F.4th at 568–69. This case falls into the
latter category.
McGhee-Twilley’s son was murdered by fellow inmates at CoreCivic’s Trousdale Turner
Correctional Center, a tragedy she attributes to severe understaffing at the Center. On that basis,
she sued CoreCivic under § 1983 and state law. She later settled with the company, stipulating to
the dismissal of her complaint with prejudice.
Despite that settlement, McGhee-Twilley aims to keep her lawsuit alive, now as an effort
to make public documents produced during discovery by two non-parties: District Attorney Jason
Lawson and the Tennessee Department of Corrections (TDOC). To understand this dispute’s
origins, turn back to a protective order entered by the district court by agreement of both McGhee-
Twilley and CoreCivic. The order authorized anyone who produced a document during discovery
to mark it as “CONFIDENTIAL,” at which point it presumptively qualified for protection under
Rule 26(c). See Agreed Protective Order Against Unauthorized Use or Disclosure of Confidential
Info. 1, R. 34, PageID#1939; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467
2
No. 24-5707, McGhee-Twilley v. CoreCivic of Tenn., LLC
U.S. 20, 36 (1984) (noting trial court’s “broad discretion” to determine the “degree of protection”
afforded documents during “the discovery process”). A party who disagreed with such a
confidentiality designation could use ordinary “discovery dispute . . . procedures” to contest
before the magistrate judge the appropriateness of Rule 26(c) protection. Agreed Protective Order,
supra, at 6, R. 34, PageID#1944.
Utilizing those procedures, McGhee-Twilley challenged the confidentiality of documents
Lawson and TDOC produced under subpoena. But before that issue could be resolved, McGhee-
Twilley and CoreCivic notified the court that they had settled McGhee-Twilley’s suit, with the
parties agreeing to an across-the-board dismissal. The district court accordingly deemed the cas
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools