Kaiser v. Spokane County et al

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; denying 14 Motion for Protective Order; granting 15 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Senior Judge Justin L. Quackenbush. (CV, Case Administrator)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3

4 WESELY H. KAISER,
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

)
)
) No. 2:14-CV-00078-JLQ
Plaintiff,
)
) ORDER DENYING MOTION
) FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
)
vs.
)
)
)
SPOKANE COUNTY, and
)
DEPUTY J. RUSSELL,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

12
13

BEFORE THE COURT is the parties' Stipulated Motion for Entry of Protective

14 Order (ECF No. 14) and Motion to Expedite (ECF No. 15). The parties seek a broad
15 protective order pertaining to "all documentation produced in conjunction with, or related
16 to/or pertaining to deputies of Spokane County Sheriff's Department and any and all
17 personal information regarding any third-parties...." (ECF No. 14, p. 2)(emphasis added).
18 The parties have apparently agreed that such information may be deemed "confidential".
It is this court's general policy not to enter 'blanket' protective orders. The Ninth
19
20 Circuit Court of Appeals also does not generally approve of 'blanket' protective orders.
21 See Foltz v. State Farm Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding it could not
22 sustain the district court's blanket protective order because the district court did not
23 require a specific showing as to particular documents). Rule 26(c) provides that upon a
24 showing of "good cause" the court may enter a protective order. "A party asserting good
25 cause bears the burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect, of showing that
26 specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted." Foltz, 331 F.3d at
27 1130.
28

No documents have been provided to the court for a determination of whether good
ORDER - 1

1 cause exists for a protective order. Instead, the parties seek an extremely broad protective
2 order that applies to "any documents, written or other that contain any personal
3 information regarding any third-party in the above-referenced matter or not a party
4 hereto....". (ECF No. 14-1, p. 2). The "good cause" requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)
5 pertains to "a party or person." The Ninth Circuit recently stated: "The plain meaning of
6 the word 'person' would include third parties who are not part of the litigation. Thus, we
7 cannot logically exclude third parties from our rule that whoever is seeking protection
8 under Rule 26(c) bears the burden of showing good cause." In the Matter of Roman
9 Catholic Archbishop, 661 F.3d 417, 426 (9th Cir. 2011).
10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

11

1. The Motion to Expedite (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED.

12

2. The Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 14) is DENIED.

13

3. The parties are free to make agreements concerning the conduct and

14 confidentiality of discovery, and apparently have so agreed. While the court will not
15 enter a Protective Order without a particularized showing as to specific documents, the
16 denial of court participation in the agreement between the parties shall not affect the
17 validity of the agreement as between the parties. The parties have stipulated to terms and
18 conditions to maintain the confidentiality of certain documents. Should the parties have
19 need to file any of the documents with the court, they may file the documents under seal
20 along with a motion to seal, and at that time the court will determine if it is appropriate to
21 seal the documents. The parties shall also comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2 concerning
22 privacy protections for filings made with the court.
23

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk is hereby directed to file this Order and furnish

24 copies to counsel.
25

DATED this 16th day of July, 2014.

26

s/ Justin L. Quackenbush
JUSTIN L. QUACKENBUSH
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
ORDER - 2