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)

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