Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. v. Sessler et al

Filing 77

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Re: 52 Motion for Protective Order denying with leave to renew. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (AY, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES,
INC.,

NO: 4:17-CV-5040-RMP

8
Plaintiff,
9
v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER

10
11
12
13
14

MILTON SESSLER; PACIFIC HIDE
& FUR DEPOT, a Montana
corporation doing business as Pacific
Steel & Recycling; PACIFIC HIDE &
FUR DEPORT, doing business as
Pacific Hide & Fur Depot, a Montana
corporation; PACIFIC HIDE & FUR
DEPOT, INC., a Washington
corporation,

15
Defendants.
16
17

BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting that the Court

18

Enter Plaintiff’s Proposed Protective Order, ECF No. 52. The Court has reviewed

19

the motion and the record and is fully informed.

20
21

Plaintiff seeks a protective order that would cover documents, including
documents that Mr. Sessler emailed to his personal email account, that Plaintiff
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ~ 1

1

alleges are confidential and contain trade secrets and proprietary information.

2

Based on testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing held on May 24, 2017, the

3

Court finds that all the relevant documents that Defendant Sessler retained have

4

since been destroyed or returned to Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff referenced the

5

possibility of other confidential documents arising in the course of discovery, there

6

has been no showing at this juncture that any potentially confidential information

7

will be necessary in this matter. Therefore, the Court finds no basis to enter a

8

protective order.

9

Should the need arise, the Court will allow the parties to seek a protective

10

order at a later date, but such a request must be supported by evidence of the need

11

to protect confidential information that is relevant to this litigation and consistent

12

with Ninth Circuit law. Bare, conclusory assertions will not suffice.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion

14

Requesting that the Court Enter Plaintiff’s Proposed Protective Order, ECF No.

15

52, is DENIED with leave to renew.

16
17
18
19
20

The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to
counsel.
DATED May 25, 2017.
s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
United States District Judge

21
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ~ 2