Walsh et al v. Safeco Insurance Company of America
Filing
18
Letter from Judge Robert S. Lasnik re Parties' 17 Motion for Protective Order. (MJV)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
W ESTERN DISTRICT OF W ASHINGTON
UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
700 STEWART STREET
SEATTLE, W ASHINGTON 98101
ROBERT S. LASNIK
DISTRICT JUDGE
(206) 370-8810
October 24, 2024
Heather N. Deenski
Cedar View Law, PLLC
108 Union Avenue
Snohomish, WA 98290
Jennifer E. Aragon
Fosbeg & Umlauf, P.S.
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1400
Seattle, WA 98164
Delivered Via CM/ECF
RE:
Walsh v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., C23-1862RSL
Stipulated Protective Order
Dear Counsel:
On October 23, 2024, the Court received your proposed “Stipulated Motion for a
Protective Order.” Dkt. # 17.
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 because it is too broad and
gives too much discretion to the parties to designate information as “confidential.” The
order mentions types of information that Safeco may designate as confidential, but then
states that the listed documents may not, in fact, be confidential at all. The order also
purports to grant to the parties the power to expand the list of confidential documents as
they see fit. 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, and any
modification of a protective order entered by the Court must be approved and signed by
the Court. As written, the parties’ description of “confidential” documents imposes
virtually no limit on what corporate documents could be shielded from public view and
no assurance that the designated documents are actually confidential.
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,
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?