Miley v. AstaReal Inc

Filing 12

ORDER Re: Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order; denying 11 Motion for Protective Order. (cc: Nicholaus Miley via first class mail). Signed by Senior Judge Justin L. Quackenbush. (PL, Case Administrator)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

4
5
6

NICHOLAUS MILEY,

7

Plaintiff,

8

v.

9
10

NO. 2:16-CV-00415-JLQ
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ENTRY
OF STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER

ASTAREAL INC.,

11

Defendant.

12
13

On February 14, 2017, the parties filed a Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective

14

Order (ECF No. 11). The proposed protective order defines “Confidential” to include

15

Plaintiff’s medical records, Plaintiff’s disciplinary records, personnel record for Plaintiff

16

or other employees of Defendant, and proprietary information of Defendant. (ECF No. 11

17

at 7). The proposed order provides for the handling of “confidential” documents. See

18

(ECF No. 11 at 6-14).

19

It is this court’s general policy not to enter “blanket” protective orders. The Ninth

20

Circuit also generally does not approve of “blanket” protective orders. See Foltz v. State

21

Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (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). Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) provides that

24

upon a showing of “good cause” the court may enter a protective order. “A party

25

asserting good cause bears the burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect, of

26

showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.”

27

Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. No documents have been provided to the court for a

28

determination of whether good cause exists for a protective order. Such an order is not
ORDER - 1

1

necessary in view of the agreement of the parties as to the handling of confidential

2

material.

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

4

1.

The Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 11) is

5

DENIED. The denial does not affect the validity of the parties agreement

6

concerning the handling of documents and confidential material.

7

2.

The parties are free to make arrangements concerning the conduct and use of

8

discovery, and have so agreed in their proposed protective order. The denial

9

of court participation in the agreement between the parties shall not affect

10

the validity of the agreement. The parties have stipulated to terms and

11

conditions to maintain the confidentiality of certain documents. Should the

12

parties have need (despite redactions) to file any documents under seal, they

13

may do so along with a motion to seal. The court will then determine if it is

14

appropriate to seal the documents. The parties shall also comply with

15

Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2 concerning privacy protections for filings made with the

16

court.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Order and
furnish copies to counsel.
Dated February 15, 2017.
s/ Justin L. Quackenbush
JUSTIN L. QUACKENBUSH
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 2