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