Osborne et al v. Billings Clinic et al

Filing 78

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 44 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Billings Clinic AND DENYING 51 MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal Billings Clinic Policies filed by Dale Osborne AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Susan P. Watters on 2/27/2015. (EMH, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BILLINGS DIVISION

DALE OSBORNE, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Sarah
Osborne,
OPINION and ORDER

Plaintiff,
vs.
BILLINGS CLINIC, and UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

BILLINGS CLINIC,
Cross-Claimant,
Vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Cross-Defendant.

Defendant Billings Clinic has moved for a protective order (Doc. 44) to
protect the policies and procedures requested in discovery by Plaintiff Dale
Osborne from disclosure to the public. (Doc. 44-1 at 3). Because a state court
order already exists on this issue, Billings Clinic's motion is denied.
1

I.

Relevant Facts
Osborne initiated this action against defendant Billings Clinic on January 6,

2014, in Montana State Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County.
(Doc. 9). On March 14, 2014, Billings Clinic moved the state court for a
protective order regarding the same policies at issue in the current motion before
this Court. (Doc. 8-1 at 11 ). The parties briefed the issue for the state court
relying, for the most part, on identical arguments they briefed to this Court. (Doc.
8-1 at 34-217). Notably, in his reply, Osborne pointed out that the Montana Rules
of Civil Procedure, like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, required Billings
Clinic to prove "good cause" existed for a protective order to issue. (Doc. 8-1 at
43). The state court found good cause existed and granted Billings Clinic's motion
for protective order on June 23, 2014. (Doc. 12-5). Billings Clinic removed this
case to this Court on September 16, 2014. (Doc. 1).

II.

Discussion
After removal of an action to federal district court, "the federal court takes

the case up where the state court left it off." Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of

Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 ofAlameda Cnty~, 415 U.S. 423,
436 (1974) (internal citation omitted). "All injunctions, orders, and other
proceedings" before the state court remain binding in the federal court until they
are dissolved or modified. 28 U.S.C. § 1450. "The federal court ... treats
2

everything that occurred in the state court as if it had taken place in federal court."

Carvalho v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 887 (9th Cir.2010)
(citingButnerv. Neustadter, 324 F.2d 783, 785 (9th Cir.1963)). Accordingly,
where the state court has entered an order, the order should be treated as though it
had been validly rendered in the federal proceeding." Id. (quoting Butner, 324 F.2d
at 785).
Here, the presiding judge in the state action already granted Billings Clinic's
identical motion for protective order regarding its policies. Because this order was
in effect at the time this case was removed and the order has not been dissolved or
modified, it is binding and "remains in full force and effect." 28 U.S.C. § 1450.
Accordingly, Billings Clinic's Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 44) is DENIED
as moot. Further, Plaintiff Osborne's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Billings
Clinic Policies (Doc. 51) filed to supplement Plaintiffs response brief on this issue
is also DENIED as moot.

..µ__
DATED thi' <lld•y of Fobnrnry 2015.)

.~eu)~<~"
SUSANP. WATTERS
United States District Judge

3