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)

Download PDF
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 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

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?