Justice-Denied · Editorial cartoons
Cartoon 4 of 26
Judicial Jeopardy: The Extra Answer
Satire. Dialogue is imagined; the underlying rulings and records are linked below.
Read cartoon text
Panel 1: THE CATEGORY
The tuxedoed gavel host presents a MEDICAL PROVIDERS board beside a paper contestant labeled JUDGE MILLER’S ORDER.
Gavel host: The category: Medical Providers.
Panel 2: THE CLUE
A blue clue board reads WHO ARE HER MEDICAL PROVIDERS? A caption below reads THE LIST THE COURT ORDERED.
Panel 3: BUZZ IN
JUDGE MILLER’S ORDER presses a red buzzer at a podium reading PUBLIC ORDER / MARIE’S CANCER DIAGNOSIS. A folder beside it reads CONFIDENTIAL SUPPORTING RECORDS.
Judge Miller’s Order: What is her cancer diagnosis?
Panel 4: THE EXTRA ANSWER
The gavel host points between a small PROVIDER LIST card and the larger PUBLIC ORDER / MARIE’S CANCER DIAGNOSIS display. JUDGE MILLER’S ORDER stands behind the podium.
Gavel host: What did going public add to that list?
Artwork caption: Imagined game-show dialogue. Sources on the cartoon page.
Behind the cartoon
Judge Miller’s order requires provider names and specific privilege claims, yet publicly names Marie’s cancer diagnosis. This imagined quiz sets Medical Providers as the category and asks for names. The order answers with the diagnosis, leaving the host to ask what going public added to the list. The contrast questions whether that disclosure was needed.
Underlying records
- December 6, 2022 order, Doc. 366 (PDF)Original/PDF pp. 32–35, especially p. 34 in the medical-discovery discussion and p. 35 on the provider list and specific privilege assertions.
- Justice-Denied — Information Double StandardThe discussion of Marie Stevenson’s declaration, Doc. 505, paragraphs 87–90, presents plaintiffs’ account of the diagnosis’s disclosure in a public order.
The broader medical-discovery discussion names cancer on p. 34; the relief on p. 35 requires a provider list and specific privilege assertions. Plaintiffs say the supporting documents were confidential. The cartoon asks whether repeating the diagnosis publicly was necessary to resolve that issue. The notice board and dialogue are imagined.
More record detail
Stevenson v. Stevenson, 56-CV-20-2928, Doc. 366, December 6, 2022: pp. 32–35 (medical-record discovery); p. 34 (cancer diagnosis named); p. 35 (interrogatory listing all known providers and particularized privilege assertions). Confidential treatment of supporting documents is attributed to plaintiffs’ account.
