Turpen v. Washington State Patrol et al
Filing
15
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - denying 13 Motion for Protective Order; and granting 14 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Stanley A. Bastian. (CC, Case Administrator)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
7
8 LISA TURPEN, a single person,
No. 2:15-cv-00289-SAB
Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
11 STATE OF WASHINGTON, by and
ORDER DENYING
STIPULATED MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
12 through the WASHINGTON STATE
13 PATROL; ERICA GRAHAM,
14 individually; and TRAVIS MATHESON,
15 individually,
16
Defendants.
17
18
Before the Court is the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Protective Order, ECF
19 No. 13, and a related stipulated motion to expedite, ECF No. 14. The parties seek a
20 protective order to protect confidential information. This motion was heard
21 without oral argument.
22
The product of pretrial discovery is presumptively public, though Federal
23 Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(c) permits a district court to override this
24 presumption upon a showing of “good cause.” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v.
25 U.S. District Court-Northern Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir.
26 1999). Rule 26(c) provides that a “court may, for good cause, issue an order to
27 protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
28 burden or expense.” Prior to the grant of a protective order, the moving party must
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION FOR . . . ^ 1
1 certify it has “conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an
2 effort to resolve the dispute without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (emphasis
3 added).
Where the parties agree, as here, that certain information should remain
4
5 confidential, it may be prudent to enter into an agreement setting forth in writing
6 what information shall remain private. It is unnecessary, however, for such an
7 agreement to have this Court’s imprimatur. A court issued protective order is less
8 necessary since Rule 5(d) was amended to only require filing discovery material
9 actually used in support of an action. Because not all discovery material need be
10 filed, most discovery material is not readily accessible to the public. Therefore, the
11 primary concern regarding confidential materials is how the parties themselves
12 handle such material. This Court will not hesitate to issue a protective order when
13 it is necessary; however, the moving party or parties must demonstrate good cause
14 exists and must bear the “burden of showing specific prejudice or harm” that will
15 result if no protective order is granted. Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,
16 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). In other words, the moving party must demonstrate why
17 the parties cannot resolve the issue without court action—a standard that will
18 generally not be met when the parties agree to the terms of a proposed protective
19 order.
20
The motion at hand fails to demonstrate specific harm or prejudice that will
21 result if no protective order is granted. Additionally, the parties appear to be in
22 agreement on the procedures to be used to determine what material is appropriate
23 for discovery and how it should be handled. Accordingly, the Court denies the
24 stipulated motion for protective order.
25
The Court encourages the parties to continue cooperating with respect
26 to the handling of potentially sensitive discovery material. The parties may, upon
27 proper showing tied to specific discovery material, move the Court to protect or
28 seal certain discovery filings.
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION FOR . . . ^ 2
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
2
1. The Stipulated Motion for Protective Order, ECF No. 13, is DENIED.
3
2. The related motion to expedite, ECF No. 14, is GRANTED.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to
5 file this Order and provide copies to counsel.
6
DATED this 10th day of January, 2017.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Stanley A. Bastian
United States District Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION FOR . . . ^ 3
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?