Sunstream Corporation v. Hewitt Machine & Manufacturing, Inc.

Filing 20

LETTER FROM COURT declining to sign 19 Proposed Stipulation for Protective Order, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (CL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
700 STEWART STREET
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

ROBERT S. LASNIK
DISTRICT JUDGE

[phone]

August 13, 2012

Delivered Via CM/ECF
RE:

Sunstream Corp. v. Hewitt Mach. & Mfg., Inc., C12-316RSL
Stipulated Protective Order

Dear Counsel:
On August 6, 2012, the Court received your proposed “Protective Order” (Dkt. # 19).
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), protective orders may be entered to protect confidential
commercial information and/or to limit the scope of specific disclosures. Such protective
orders may issue upon a showing of good cause.
Although parties may agree on confidentiality among themselves, when they request that
the Court be involved, the proposed order must be narrowly drawn, identifying both the
type of information that is to be protected and, if not obvious, the reason such protection
is warranted. The order must also comply with applicable federal and local rules.
The agreed protective order submitted in this case is deficient in the following respects:
First, the request is too broad. The terms of the proposed order
allow the parties too much discretion to designate information as
“Confidential,” “Highly Confidential,” etc. Any protective order
entered by the Court must clearly and specifically identify the
documents subject to the order.
Second, the parties have not shown that their interests in the
“confidential materials” at issue outweigh the public’s right of access
to Court documents. For example, the parties have not shown that
restrictions on the dissemination of “proprietary, confidential, and/or
commercially sensitive information,” beyond those already accorded
by the Local Rules, are necessary to protect persons from annoyance,

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, as
contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
Third, the Court will not rule on a motion to seal that does not
include the documents sought to be sealed. To the extent ¶ 4 provides
differently, it must be amended. The Court notes that Local Rule
5(g)(3) and (5) pre-authorizes the filing of documents under seal for
the limited purpose of obtaining a ruling on a motion to seal and
allows for withdrawal of a document if the Court denies the motion.
Fourth, contrary to the terms of ¶ 11, the Court will not pre-authorize
the filing of any document under seal.
Fifth, the Court wishes to make clear that it has no desire to become
embroiled in disputes over what may or may not constitute protective
materials, see ¶ 11, or who may qualify as an appropriate expert, see ¶ 8.
Excessive litigation over such collateral matters will not be tolerated.
Sixth, while it is acceptable for parties to limit their own ability to share
“confidential” material to designated individuals, it should be noted that, absent an
extraordinary showing, the courtroom will remain open to the public throughout
these proceedings. Access to the transcript of courtroom proceedings will be
restricted only upon motion and a compelling showing that the need for
confidentiality outweighs the public’s right of access. Further, the Court notes that
should it decline to seal a document in the docket, that document will be available
to the public and effectively cease to be confidential unless withdrawn.
Finally, the order must contain a provision that the Court may change
the terms of the protective order on its own motion after notice to the parties
and an opportunity to be heard.
For these reasons, the protective order received by the Court will remain lodged in
the file, but will not be entered.
Sincerely,

A

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge