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)

Download PDF
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 (206) 370-8810 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

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?