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)

Download PDF
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?