Heydlauff v. The Boeing Company

Filing 14

LETTER FROM THE COURT declining to sign Stipulated 13 Motion for Protective Order signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 700 STEWART STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 ROBERT S. LASNIK DISTRICT JUDGE (206) 370-8810 July 27, 2017 Delivered Via CM/ECF RE: Heydlauff v. The Boeing Company, C17-687RSL Stipulated Protective Order Dear Counsel: On July 26, 2017, the Court received your proposed Stipulated Motion for Entry of Protective Order and Proposed Protective Order (Dkt. # 13). 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 stipulated protective order submitted in this case is deficient in the following respects: Section 5.2(b) of the proposed order would allow a party to offer testimony in open court and then unilaterally designate some or all of the testimony as protected material. Documents presented or testimony offered in the courtroom are generally matters of public record. 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. The stipulated protective order received by the Court will remain lodged in the file, but will not be entered. The parties may resubmit a proposed order if they remedy the deficiencies identified in this letter. Sincerely, A Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge

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?