Linehan v. Pederson et al

Filing 24

LETTER FROM COURT re parties' 23 Stipulated Protective Order, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. The Court is declining to sign. (SWT)

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

ROBERT S. LASNIK
DISTRICT JUDGE

[phone]

January 17, 2018

Ana-Maria Popp
Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.S.
524 Second Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98104-2323

William C. Rava
Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099

Delivered Via CM/ECF
RE:

Linehan v. Pederson, et al., C17-1494RSL
Stipulated Protective Order

Dear Counsel:
On January 16, 2018, the Court received your proposed “Stipulated Protective Order.”
Dkt. # 23.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), protective orders may be entered to protect parties from
annoyance, embarrassment, or undue burden or to protect confidential commercial
information. 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 the applicable federal and local procedural
rules.
The agreed protective order submitted in this case is deficient because it is too broad and
gives too much discretion to the parties to designate information as “confidential.” The
order mentions a broad array of documents, only some of which raise a presumption of
confidentiality. In addition, the categories listed in paragraph 2 of the proposed order are
simply examples and do not limit the scope of the order. Rather, the parties essentially

seek protection for anything they choose to identify as “confidential.” Any protective
order entered by the Court must clearly identify the class or type of documents subject to
the order and the need for confidentiality
The agreed 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