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)

Download PDF
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?