Providence Health & Services et al v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London et al
Filing
77
ORDER denying parties' 74 Stipulated Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
6
7
8
9
10
PROVIDENCE HEALTH AND SERVICES,
a Washington non-profit corporation; and
SWEDISH HEALTH SERVICES, a
Washington non-profit corporation,
11
12
13
14
15
CASE NO. C18-495 RSM
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Plaintiffs,
v.
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S
LONDON, SYNDICATE 2623/623
(BEAZLEY); and FEDERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY.
16
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Protective Order.
Dkt. #74.
The Court finds that the proposed Protective Order does not conform to the requirement
that its “protection from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or
items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles” as required
by Local Rule 26(c)(2). Under the section entitled Confidential Material, the Court’s Model
25
Protective Order instructs: “[t]he parties must include a list of specific documents such as
26
‘company’s customer list’ or ‘plaintiff’s medical records;’ do not list broad categories of
27
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER – 1
1
documents such as ‘sensitive business material.’” See Dkt. #74-1 at 2. Defendants have rewritten
2
this section to state that confidential material shall include “any documents, testimony, or other
3
information that the producing party believes in good faith is entitled to confidential treatment
4
under applicable law, including but not necessarily limited to the following documents,” and list
5
6
materials including “Documents that include confidential commercial or competitively sensitive
information, including but not limited to trade secrets” and “Documents containing material that,
7
8
9
if unnecessarily disseminated or used for purposes other than this litigation, could prejudice
Providence’s interests in the proceedings underlying this insurance coverage action.” Id.
10
The Court finds that the parties have impermissibly left the door open to labeling a wide
11
variety of documents as confidential. Furthermore, the parties have contradicted the instructions
12
of the model order by listing broad categories of documents such as “sensitive business material.”
13
14
15
16
“Confidential commercial or competitively sensitive information” and “documents containing
material that… could prejudice Providence’s interests” are overbroad categories too likely to
include materials not entitled to confidential treatment. The parties submit no argument to justify
17
this departure from the Model Protective Order’s guidelines. For this reason alone, the Motion
18
will be denied.
19
Having reviewed the briefing, along with the remainder of the record, the Court hereby
20
finds and ORDERS that the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Protective Order, Dkt. #74, is
21
22
23
24
25
26
DENIED.
DATED this 25th day of July 2019.
A
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER – 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?