Boyd v. United States

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Washington
DecidedJanuary 3, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-00216
StatusUnknown

This text of Boyd v. United States (Boyd v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Boyd v. United States, (E.D. Wash. 2025).

Opinion

Jan 03, 2025 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 DEBORAH L. BOYD, individually 10 and as personal representative of the Estate of Robert T. Boyd, No. 2:24-cv-00216-RLP 11 12 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 13 ORDER RE: NON-PARTIES’ vs. 14 PRIVATE & SENSITIVE 15 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PERSONAL, MEDICAL and/or EMPLOYMENT 16 INFORMATION 17 Defendant. 18 19 BEFORE the Court is parties’ Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective 20 Order Re: Protection of Non-Parties’ Private Personal Identification(PPI) and Other 21 22 Confidential-Sensitive Background Information. (ECF No. 18). The Court being 23 fully informed, the motion is GRANTED. 24 Under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court, upon 25 26 motion of a party and upon good cause shown, “may make any order which justice 27 requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or 28 29 undue burden or expense.” The Rule permits a court to order that “that the 30 disclosure or discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions.” Fed. R. 31 Civ. P. 26(c)(2). The Defendant United States requests this Protective Order 32 33 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11), to provide for the disclosure of personally 34 identifying information which is contained in certain U.S. Veterans Administration and/or other federal, state, local and/or Native American governmental documents, 1 and which records and materials may be subject to disclosure under Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 26 or other applicable discovery mechanisms provided for under the Fed. R. Civ. 3 4 Pro. 5 The United States also seeks this protective order under Rule 26(c)(1)(B) for 6 the purpose of adequately protecting the disclosures of records – electronic material 7 8 (from government databases) of third parties’ personal identifiable information (PII) 9 and privacy interests by other non-party employees and/or contractors of the U.S. 10 11 Veterans Administration, which records may also contain confidential and/or sensitive 12 personal and personnel information of non-parties, including education, medical, 13 and/or law enforcement contact background; administrative investigations and/or 14 15 personnel or medical information, which are entitled to be protected and kept 16 confidential, and therefore this order is needed to ensure that protection is afforded 17 only to third parties’ identified Privacy Act identity and/or personal background 18 19 materials. 20 This court has significant discretion in granting a protective order to prevent “a 21 party or [third party] person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue 22 23 burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); See Gautheir v. Hoye, 52 Fed. Appx. 28, 24 29 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, nonparty officials - employees – contractors would be 25 subject to annoyance and embarrassment if their protected identies, personnel 26 27 information, credentialing files, and/or other personal (i.e., education, medical, or 28 additional personnel) information and/or other Privacy Act protected information 29 were openly or publicly revealed and widely disseminated. See Travis v. Fluor 30 31 Hanford, Inc., 2007 WL 1074890, *1 (E.D. WA April 5, 2007) (granting a protective 32 order, preventing or limiting the production of confidential personnel information 33 regarding employees who are not a party to plaintiffs’ action); Gautheir, id. 34 The United States asserts that absent a protective order, a violation of a non- 1 party’s privacy and/or sensitive personal interests and/or the Privacy Act, which 2 protects the privacy interests of non-parties / federal employees, could subject the 3 4 involved government agency, sub-agency, entity and/or sub-entity to potential civil 5 liability under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g). Because the Privacy Act interests of third parties 6 may be implicated here (i.e., non-party federal employees and/or officials), and 7 8 because the subject requested discovery documents are likely to contain personally 9 identifiable information (PII) of non-parties, which information may be prohibited 10 11 from disclosure to Plaintiffs under the Privacy Act and/or other privacy statutes, 12 regulations, laws or other governmental privileges, absent a waiver from each 13 individual employee or official, then, without conceding that point, the Plaintiffs agree 14 15 to the resolution of these issues – concerns through the entry of this Protective Order. 16 Absent other applicable privileges, protected information includes and is not 17 limited to the nonparties’ names, ages, addresses, phone numbers, emails, etc. 18 19 Additionally, the documents may contain information such as federal or state 20 officials’ and/or agents’ names. The United States may, however, redact personal 21 identifying information (inter alia, non-party identities, including family – extended 22 23 family information) and may assert additional privileges, but is not refusing to provide 24 identity of personnel and/or personnel action information related to the incident(s) 25 which form the basis for Plaintiff’s lawsuit. Therefore, the United States requests that 26 27 these particularized subjects of information be marked confidential and be restricted 28 and used only for the purposes of this litigation, and thereafter be totally destroyed by 29 the recipient party. See e.g., May v. Fedex Freight Southeast, Inc., 2009 WL 1605211, 30 31 *3 (M.D. La June 8, 2009) (rejecting proposed protective order deeming all nonparty 32 personnel documents with PII “confidential”). 33 34 This Stipulated Protective Order (“Protective Order”) shall govern the 1 treatment and handling of all non-party personal identification information (PII), 2 personal or personnel records and/or other sensitive records, which records and/or 3 4 information are designated by the parties and/or by the Court as containing 5 confidential information, including, but not limited to, personnel and administrative 6 records of non-party employees and/or agents of the the U.S. Veterans 7 8 Administration. 9 Therefore, in the interest of expediting the flow of discovery material on issues 10 11 in this case involving the parties, and to help facilitate the prompt resolution of 12 disputes over protected and/or confidential information – records – ESI, it is pursuant 13 to the court's authority under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and the Privacy Act, and with the 14 15 stipulation and consent of the parties, that the following Protective Order will apply to 16 appropriate records and information within records and ESI information produced by 17 the United States in its discovery disclosures and responses: 18 19 1. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11), and subject to the conditions 20 described below, Defendant is authorized to release to Plaintiff’s counsel certain 21 government records and information containing what the Defendant asserts is or 22 23 may be subject to the protections of the Privacy Act and/or are otherwise protected 24 or sensitive personal – personnel information of non-party individuals, government 25 employees, officials and/or contractors.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gauthier v. Hoye
52 F. App'x 28 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Boyd v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-united-states-waed-2025.