Boards of Trustees of the Cement Masons & Plasterers Health & Welfare Trust et al v. Railworks Track Systems Inc

Filing 19

LETTER to Counsel re the #18 Proposed Stipulated Protective Order. The stipulated 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 identified deficiencies. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (LH)

Case 2:22-cv-01236-RSL Document 19 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 2

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

ROBERT S. LASNIK
DISTRICT JUDGE

[phone]

November 17, 2022

Delivered Via CM/ECF
RE:

Boards of Trustees of The Cement Masons & Plasterers Health & Welfare
Trust, et al. v. RailWorks Track Systems Inc dba RailWorks Track Systems
LLC, C22-1236-RSL
Stipulated Protective Order

Dear Counsel:
On November 16, 2022, the Court received your Proposed Stipulated Protective Order
(Dkt. # 18).
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), protective orders may be entered to protect confidential
commercial information and/or to limit the scope of specific disclosures. 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 stipulated protective order submitted in this case is deficient in that the parties have
not shown good cause for a protective order as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The
request is too broad and the terms of the order give too much discretion to the parties to
designate documents subject to the protective order. Any protective order entered by the
Court must be narrowly drawn and clearly identify the class or type of documents subject
to the order. If the parties intend to resubmit a proposed protective order, they should
rewrite paragraph 2 to identify with specificity the documents that will be considered
“confidential” under the order.
The stipulated 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

Case 2:22-cv-01236-RSL Document 19 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 2

deficiencies identified in this letter.

Sincerely,

A
Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge