Stenson v. King County et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying Parties' 13 Stipulated MOTION for Protective Order without prejudice. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SB)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

DEREK STENSON,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

CASE NO. C23-1316 MJP

v.

ORDER DENYING STIPULATED
PROTECTIVE ORDER

KING COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

This matter comes before the Court on the Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order. (Dkt. No.

17

13.) Having reviewed the Order and all supporting materials, the Court DENIES entry of the

18

Order without prejudice.

19

The Court appreciates that the Parties have submitted a proposed protective order that

20

largely tracks the District’s Model Protective Order. But the Parties propose an overbroad and

21

vague definition of “confidential material” to include “[a]ny other material enjoying special legal

22

protection from disclosure that is relevant to the claims or defenses in this case.” As the Model

23

Protective Order instructs, the Parties “must include a list of specific documents such as

24
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER - 1

1

‘company’s customer list’ or ‘plaintiff’s medical records;’” and may not “list broad categories of

2

documents such as “sensitive business material.’” Model Stipulated Protective Order at 2,

3

available at

4

https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/sites/wawd/files/ModelStipulatedProtectiveOrder.pdf. The

5

Court will consider a more specific and narrow definition of “confidential material” that tracks

6

the Model Protective Order and identifies specific documents, rather than an open-ended and

7

overbroad category of documents.

8

The Court also rejects the Parties’ proposed “Acknowledgment.” The Parties have

9

revised and altered the language of the “Acknowledgment” from the Model Protective Order in

10

material ways that do not appear to be either necessary or prudent. Without some explanation as

11

to why the proposed revisions are necessary, the Court rejects this deviation from the Model

12

Protective Order. The Court will consider a revised “Acknowledgment” that mirrors the one

13

included in the Model Protective Order.

14

For these two reasons, the Court DENIES the Order without prejudice. The Court will

15

consider entry of a revised Stipulated Protective Order that addresses the Court’s concerns set

16

forth in this Order.

17

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

18

Dated November 13, 2023.

19

A

20

Marsha J. Pechman
United States Senior District Judge

21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER - 2