Murdzia v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

Filing 17

LETTER FROM THE COURT re parties' 16 Stipulated Protective Order, signed 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]

September 4, 2018

Joshua Swigart
Hyde & Swigart
2220 Camino del Rio South #101
San Diego, CA 92108

Virginia Bell Flynn
Troutman Sanders, LLP
11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400
Sand Diego, CA 92130

Delivered Via CM/ECF
RE:

Murdzia v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, C18-0755RSL
Stipulated Protective Order

Dear Counsel:
On August 28, 2018, the Court received your proposed “Stipulated Protective Order.”
Dkt. # 16.
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 in that it is too broad and
gives too much discretion to the parties to designate information as “confidential.” The
order mentions certain types of documents that are generally shielded from public view
during litigation (such as non-party loan files), but those categories are simply examples
and do not limit the scope of the order. Rather, the parties essentially seek protection for

anything they deem warrants “special protection from public disclosure.” The parties
have not made any attempt to explain why “financial” or “commercial” information
warrants protection or identified the legal authorities that apply to the documents that are
likely to be at issue in this case. 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