Micale v. The Hardware Store Inc
Filing
19
ORDER denying Parties' 18 Stipulated Motion for Protective Order. The Court hereby finds and ORDERS that the parties' Stipulated Protective Order, Dkt. # 18 , is DENIED. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (KRA)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
CRYSTAL MICALE,
9
CASE NO. C24-806-RSM
Plaintiff,
10
11
12
13
v.
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER
THE HARDWARE STORE, INC. d/b/a/
JOHNSON’S HOME & GARDEN, et al.,
Respondent.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order. Dkt. #18.
The Court finds that the proposed Protective Order does not conform to the requirement
that its “protection from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or
items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles” as stated by
Local Rule 26(c)(2). Under the section entitled Confidential Material, the Court’s model
protective order instructs: “[t]he parties must include a list of specific documents such as
‘company’s customer list’ or ‘plaintiff’s medical records;’ do not list broad categories of
documents such as ‘sensitive business material.’” The parties have not followed this instruction
and instead include broad examples, including “[f]inancial documents with sensitive . . .
24
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
information[,]” “[d]ocuments containing sensitive, financial, or confidential information[,]”
and “[a]ny other information not in the public domain that is reasonably and in good faith believe
by the producing party to contain . . . highly sensitive information.” Dkt. #18 at 2.
Although some proper categories of documents are referenced, the Court finds that the
parties have impermissibly left the door open to labeling a wide variety of documents as
confidential, including categories that can be summed up as “sensitive business material.” The
parties submit no argument to justify this departure from the model protective order’s guidelines,
and the Court will not enter an order with such language.
Given all of the above, the Motion will be denied.
Having reviewed the instant Motion and remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds
and ORDERS that the parties Stipulated Protective Order, Dkt. #18, is DENIED.
12
13
14
15
16
DATED this 27th day of January, 2025.
A
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION FOR 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?