Lyons et al v. State of Washington Child Protective Services et al

Filing 25

ORDER granting 22 Motion for Protective Order and 24 Motion for Joinder. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (BF, Paralegal)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 ANDREA JOY LYONS; MARK GEERHART, NO. 1:17-CV-3108-TOR 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 STATE OF WASHINGTON, CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, a Division of THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES; Employee’s FRANCESCA GUZMAN in her individual and official capacity; EAST VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, DISTRICT NO. 90, Yakima County, State of Washington; COLEEN CROWSTON, in her individual and official capacity as Principal of East Valley Elementary School; LISA BARTHELD (Counselor), in her individual and official capacity; CAROLYN SAUVE (Administrative Assistant), in her individual and official capacity; and MELODY ANN LUKE (R.N.), in her individual and official capacity, 19 20 Defendants. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ~ 1 1 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants’ Motion and Memorandum for 2 Protective Order. ECF No. 22. This matter was submitted for consideration 3 without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein, and is 4 fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ Motion for 5 Protective Order (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED. 6 7 BACKGROUND This action arises out of the Washington State Department of Social and 8 Health Services’ referral and investigation of potential child abuse or neglect of 9 C.T. by Kevin Teeman. ECF No. 22 at 2. Plaintiffs Andrea Joy Lyons and Mark 10 Geerhart assert 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims and First, Fourth, and Fourteenth 11 Amendment claims under familial association, privacy, and warrantless seizure and 12 removal of children. ECF No. 12 at 20, 24. Plaintiffs also aver a Monell claim 13 against Defendants State of Washington, Child Protective Services, and East 14 Valley School District. Id. at 28. Plaintiffs bring state law claims for violation of 15 state civil rights, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, battery, false 16 imprisonment, abuse of process, invasion of privacy, and negligence. Id. at 33–50. 17 Defendants the Department of Social and Health Services (“Department”) 18 and Francesca Guzman filed a Motion for Protective Order. ECF No. 22. 19 Defendants East Valley School District, Colleen Crowston, Lisa Bartheld, Carolyn 20 Sauve, and Melody Ann Luke joined the Motion for Protective Order. ECF No. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ~ 2 1 24. At the joint discovery conference, the attorney for Defendants Ms. Guzman 2 and Department attempted to explain to Plaintiffs the need for a protective order 3 before disclosing third-party protected information. ECF No. 23 at ¶ 3. Plaintiffs 4 have failed to timely respond. 5 6 DISCUSSION Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), the scope of discovery is 7 broad and includes “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim 8 or defense….” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Yet, under Federal Rule of Civil 9 Procedure 26(c)(1), the court may, for good cause, issue an order limiting 10 discovery to protect a party from “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or 11 undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). 12 Here, Plaintiffs sent a discovery request for “[c]omplete and unredacted case 13 notes of Andrea Lyons and Kevin Teeman.” ECF No. 23 at 5 (Ex. A). Defendants 14 do not contest that the request contains discoverable information involving the 15 parties’ claims and defenses. ECF No. 22 at 4. Yet, Defendants assert that a large 16 portion of the Department’s investigation, records, case notes, and other files 17 contain confidential and privileged information of third parties. Id. at 2. 18 Defendants state that the Department cannot waive any third parties’ privilege, 19 confidentiality, or privacy interests and therefore requests a protective order. Id. 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ~ 3 1 Defendants cite eight statutes and regulations protecting such information. See id. 2 at 4–5. 3 The Court finds that Defendants have in good faith attempted to confer with 4 Plaintiffs and demonstrated good cause for issuance of a protective order. Such an 5 order ensures that the third-party privileged information regarding Mr. Teeman and 6 the confidential medical records of C.T. are not disclosed to the public. Plaintiffs 7 will also not suffer prejudice with entry of this Order. Accordingly, the Court 8 grants Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order. ECF Nos. 22, 24 9 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 10 Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 22) and Joinder (ECF 11 No. 24) are GRANTED. The Proposed Protective Order, filed as ECF No. 22-1, is 12 approved and shall be entered. The parties shall abide by the Protective Order. 13 14 15 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish copies to the parties. DATED November 27, 2017. 16 17 THOMAS O. RICE Chief United States District Judge 18 19 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ~ 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?