Eagle Harbor Holdings, LLC, et al v. Ford Motor Company

Filing 74

ORDER denying #70 Motion for Protective Order by Judge Benjamin H Settle.(TG)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

EAGLE HARBOR HOLDINGS, LLC,

8
9
10

Plaintiff,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

11

CASE NO. C11-5503 BHS
ORDER DENYING AMENDED
AGREED MOTION REGARDING
PROTECTIVE ORDER

Defendant.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ amended agreed motion

14 regarding protective order (Dkt. 70). The Court has considered the motion and proposed
15 order and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated herein.
16

On January 4, 2012, the parties filed an agreed motion for a protective order. Dkt.

17 46. On January 9, 2012, the Court denied the motion providing specific and general
18 concerns with the parties’ proposed order. Dkt. 49. On April 27, 2012, the parties filed
19 an amended agreed motion regarding protective order. Dkt. 70.
20

I. DISCUSSION

21

Due to unexpected problems with the entry of previous protective orders, the

22 undersigned will usually decline to enter stipulated protective orders that govern entire

ORDER - 1

1 categories of discovery. The parties’ proposed order goes well beyond Fed. R. Civ. P. 26
2 and is essentially a confidentiality agreement between the parties. The agreement can be
3 entered into by the parties without the Court’s involvement.
4

With regard to issues of discovery, the Court finds that the great majority of

5 disputes can and should be solved by the parties. However, when, after a good faith
6 effort to solve a dispute, the parties require the Court’s intervention, the Court will solve
7 specific disputes regarding specific items of discovery.
8
9

II. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties’ motion for entry of a

10 stipulated protective order (Dkt. 70) is DENIED.
11

Dated this 25th day of May, 2012.

A

12
13

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2