Schwindt v. Menzies Aviation, Inc. et al

Filing 23

ORDER granting plaintiff's 10 Motion to Compel Discovery; granting defendant's 12 Motion for Protective Order signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour.(RS)

Download PDF
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 DAVID SCHWINDT, 10 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C16-1586-JCC ORDER v. 11 12 MENZIES AVIATION, INC., 13 Defendant. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff David Schwindt’s motion to compel 16 (Dkt. No. 10) and Defendant Menzies Aviation’s motion for a protective order (Dkt. No. 12). 17 Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral 18 argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS the motion to compel and GRANTS the motion for 19 protective order for the reasons explained herein. 20 As an initial matter, the Court notes that discovery motions are strongly disfavored. Here, 21 the two motions are related and it is apparent that this dispute could have been resolved without 22 the Court’s interference. Plaintiff moves to compel production of Defendant’s safety manual. 23 (Dkt. No. 10 at 1.) Defendant has agreed to produce the safety manual, provided Plaintiff 24 stipulate to a protective order, which Plaintiff has refused to do. (Dkt. No. 12 at 2.) Defendant 25 therefore moves for entry of a protective order substantially similar to the Western District of 26 Washington’s Model Stipulated Protective Order. (Id. at 1.) ORDER PAGE - 1 1 The Court is inclined to agree with both parties. The Court therefore GRANTS 2 Defendant’s motion for a protective order 1 (Dkt. No. 12) and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to 3 compel the safety manual (Dkt. No. 10). The Court notes, however, that it does not enter 4 Defendant’s proposed protective order exactly as presented. Rather than state that safety manuals 5 are confidential, the order states that they, and other similar materials, may be confidential. With 6 that clarification, the Court reminds Plaintiff that even with a protective order in place, the non- 7 designating party can always challenge a confidentiality designation. 8 9 10 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (Dkt. No. 10) and Defendant’s motion for a protective order (Dkt. No. 12) are GRANTED. Defendant shall produce the safety manual within 14 days of the entry of the protective order. 11 12 DATED this 13th day of July, 2017. A 13 14 15 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 The Protective Order itself shall be docketed as a separate entry. ORDER PAGE - 2

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?