Menefee et al v. Tacoma Public School District No. 10 et al

Filing 44

ORDER denying 41 Motion for TRO signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.(TG; cc mailed to interested party)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6

BRITTNEY MENEFEE, et al.,

CASE NO. C17-6037 BHS

7
Plaintiffs,
8
9

v.
TACOMA PUBLIC SCHOOL
DISTRICT NO. 10, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER/TO QUASH SUBPOENA
AND ORDERING THAT THE
PARTIES MEET AND CONFER

10
Defendants.
11
12

This matter comes before the Court on the filing of Kristin Pleasant, a nonparty in

13

this action. Dkt. 41. Kristin Pleasant moves to prevent disclosure and quash subpoenas

14

issued on Defendants in this action that require the production of “any form of

15

documentation including school records, emails (formal and informal) and any other

16

documentations made by other parties that reference J.P.” Id. at 1. However, the Federal

17

Rules of Civil Procedure authorize only “[a] party or any person from whom discovery is

18

sought” to move for a protective order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). See also SEC v. Tucker,

19

130 F.R.D. 461, 462 (S.D. Fla. 1990) (the Office of the U.S. Attorney was neither a party

20

nor a person from whom discovery was sought and was required to intervene in order to

21

seek protection for certain documents); Nelson v. Greenspoon, 103 F.R.D. 118, 121

22

(S.D.N.Y. 1984) (finding a nonparty may properly intervene to protect the disclosure of

ORDER - 1

1

privileged documents). As Ms. Pleasant is a nonparty and has not sought to intervene in

2

this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, her present motion is DENIED as it is

3

procedurally defective. The Court advises Ms. Pleasant that if she wishes to participate

4

more directly in controlling the manner in which the designated materials are handled by

5

the parties in this case, it may be necessary that she obtain counsel to aid her efforts.

6

Nonetheless, the Court notes that the requested discovery pertaining to J.P., while

7

relevant and necessary to Plaintiffs’ ability to pursue their claims, does implicate highly

8

sensitive information. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte orders that the parties meet and

9

confer on the issue of whether a more carefully-tailored and restrictive protective order is

10

necessary with regards to discovery of documentation regarding J.P. (and perhaps other

11

minors) than the stipulated order already filed before the Court. Preferably, the parties’

12

conference, telephonic or otherwise, will include Ms. Pleasant to some extent in light of

13

her interest in protecting any potentially confidential and privileged material regarding

14

J.P. The parties shall then issue an additional stipulated protective order or a joint status

15

report informing the Court of their conference and its outcome. Until such a conference

16

occurs, any outstanding discovery pertaining to documentation involving J.P. is

17

STAYED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated this 4th day of May, 2018.

20
21

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

22

ORDER - 2