Motion 8: Protect the Sensitive, Show the Truth — Seal Medical, Redact Private Data

Transparency does not mean throwing private and protected information into the public record. I publish my fight openly — but some records (medical diagnoses, a minor's information, private addresses and phone numbers, raw platform data) should never be dumped in public just because I need to use them to protect my liberty.

This motion sets up a clean process: redacted public exhibits, sealed or in-camera submission for the sensitive originals, and no waiver of my privacy rights.

The motion as filed — page one.

What I'm asking the court to do

• Protect my medical records, PTSD documentation, and Texas Compassionate Use Program records.
• Protect minors' names and identifying information.
• Protect private addresses, phone numbers, emails, and platform identifiers.
• Protect law-enforcement-sensitive materials where public filing would cause unnecessary harm.
• Allow redacted public exhibits and sealed or in-camera unredacted versions where necessary.

Why it matters

I must be able to present evidence without publicly exposing my own medical information or a third party's private data. Redaction protects me, witnesses, minors, and nonparties. Sealed and in-camera review lets the court verify the real records without creating unnecessary public harm — and submitting limited records for a narrow pretrial issue does not waive my broader medical and privacy rights.

The law behind it

• U.S. Const. amends. V, VI, XIV and Tex. Const. art. I, §§ 10, 19 — due process and fair-trial interests.
• Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) — courts retain supervisory power over their own records.
• Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984) — protective orders may safeguard discovery materials and privacy interests.
• Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977) — medical and privacy interests can require controlled handling of records.

The facts, and how I've classified them

• FACT: I have PTSD documentation.
• FACT / NEEDS AUTHENTICATION: I have physician documentation related to Texas Compassionate Use Program status.
• FACT: This case involves public online statements, screenshots, social media, law-enforcement records, and sensitive personal data.
• NEEDS AUTHENTICATION: Native platform records may contain private third-party account data that should be preserved but not publicly exposed.

My declaration

My name is Ryan Nichols. DOB December 6, 1990. I am the Defendant. Under penalty of perjury (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 132.001):

• I have medical records and Texas Compassionate Use Program documents relevant to pretrial issues.
• I do not seek to expose unnecessary private medical information or third-party private information in the public record.
• I ask the Court to allow redacted public filings and sealed or in-camera review where necessary.

Executed June 1, 2026, in Harrison County, Texas. /s/ Ryan Nichols

The exhibits

• EX-014 (PTSD diagnosis record) and EX-015 (physician / Texas Compassionate Use letter) are filed under seal. They are not reproduced here, and no image of them appears on this site. That is the entire point of this motion: the court can review them privately without exposing my medical information to the world.

The proposed order

• The Defendant may file redacted public exhibits.
• The Defendant may submit unredacted sensitive records under seal or for in-camera review.
• Medical records, minor information, private addresses, phone numbers, emails, and law-enforcement-sensitive data shall not be publicly disclosed unless ordered after review.
• Filing limited sensitive information for these motions does not waive broader medical or privacy rights.

The bottom line

Show the truth; protect what should stay private. Redacted in public, sealed for the court. That is how you stay transparent without hurting innocent people — including yourself.