DigiDeal Corporation v. Poydras-Talrick Holdings LLC et al

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - denying 29 Motion for Protective Order Signed by Senior Judge Justin L. Quackenbush. (VR, Courtroom Deputy)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 5 6 DIGIDEAL CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation, 7 Plaintiff/ Counterdefendant, 8 v. 9 10 11 12 NO. 2:14-cv-277-JLQ ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER SHUFFLE TECH INT’L LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, RICHARD SHULTZ, an individual, POYDRAS-TALRICK HOLDINGS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, 14 Defendants/ Counterclaimants/ Third-Party Plaintiffs 15 v. 13 16 MICHAEL J. KUHN, an individual, Third-Party Defendant 17 18 BEFORE THE COURT is the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order Governing 19 Confidential Information (ECF No. 29). The Proposed Order is broad and intended to 20 ensure that “confidential information exchanged during discovery or potentially submitted 21 to the Court by the Parties is not disclosed or used for any purpose outside of the above- 22 captioned lawsuit.” The Proposed Order allows the parties to designate portions of 23 discovery as “confidential.” 24 It is not this court’s general policy to enter ‘blanket’ protective orders. The Ninth 25 Circuit also does not generally approve of ‘blanket’ protective orders. See Foltz v. State 26 Farm Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding it could not sustain the district ORDER - 1 1 court’s blanket protective order because the district court did not require a specific 2 showing as to particular documents). Rule 26(c) provides that upon a showing of “good 3 cause” the court may enter a protective order. “A party asserting good cause bears the 4 burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect, of a showing that specific 5 prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. No 6 documents have been provided to the court for a determination of whether good cause 7 exists for a protective order. The parties are free to enter into an agreement as to 8 confidential documents without invoking the jurisdiction and supervision of the court. 9 10 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Stipulated Protective Order Governing Confidential Information (ECF No. 11 29) is DENIED. 12 2. The parties are free to make agreements concerning the conduct of discovery, and 13 apparently have so agreed. The court will not enter a Protective Order without a 14 particularized showing of other need as to specific documents. The denial of court 15 participation in the agreement between the parties does not affect the validity of any 16 agreement between the parties. The parties have stipulated to certain terms and conditions 17 to maintain the confidentiality of certain documents. Should the parties have need to file 18 any of the alleged confidential documents with the court, they may file the documents 19 under seal along with a motion to seal. At that time the court will determine if it is 20 appropriate to seal the referenced documents. The parties shall also comply with 21 Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2 concerning privacy protections for filings made with the court. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Order and furnish 23 copies to counsel. 24 DATED this 28th day of April, 2015. s/ Justin L. Quackenbush JUSTIN L. QUACKENBUSH SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 ORDER - 2

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?