Singleton v. Intellisist, Inc

Filing 45

LETTER FROM COURT re parties' 44 Proposed Stipulated Protective Order signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. The Court is declining to sing. (TH)

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

ROBERT S. LASNIK
DISTRICT JUDGE

[phone]

July 27, 2018

Benjamin J. Stone
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
111 Third Avenue, Suite 2700
Seattle, WA 98101

Tera Rica Murdock
Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis LLP
611 Union Street, Suite 2700
Nashville, TN 37219

Delivered Via CM/ECF
RE:

Singleton v. Intellisist, Inc., C17-1712RSL
Stipulated Protective Order

Dear Counsel:
On July 24, 2018, the Court received your proposed “Stipulated Protective Order.” Dkt.
# 44.
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.
The agreed protective order submitted in this case is unacceptable because the method for
filing sealed documents described in paragraph 4.3 of the proposed order is not specific
and/or varies from that provided in the local rules of this district. Local Civil Rule 5(g)
sets for the procedures that must be followed when filing documents under seal and
affords the party claiming confidentiality an opportunity to support the claim.

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