Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Medical Response Ambulance Service Inc

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Washington
DecidedMay 15, 2020
Docket2:19-cv-00258
StatusUnknown

This text of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Medical Response Ambulance Service Inc (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Medical Response Ambulance Service Inc) 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
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Medical Response Ambulance Service Inc, (E.D. Wash. 2020).

Opinion

1 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

May 15, 2020 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, NO: 2:19-CV-258-RMP 8 Plaintiff, PROTECTIVE ORDER 9 KATHERINE HALL, 10 Intervenor Plaintiff, 11 v.

12 AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., 13 Defendant. 14

15 BEFORE THE COURT is the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Protective 16 Order, ECF No. 18. A district court may issue protective orders governing 17 discovery upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Before issuing a 18 stipulated protective order, a district court judge should ensure that the protective 19 order’s restrictions do not infringe on the public’s general right to inspect and copy 20 judicial records and documents. See Kamakana v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 447 21 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). 1 Having reviewed the proposed protective order and the record, the Court 2 finds good cause to approve the stipulation and enter the agreed-upon protective

3 order. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulated 4 Motion for Protective Order, ECF No. 18, is GRANTED. The Stipulated 5 Protective Order in effect is set forth below.

6 The parties also jointly request that the Court enter an order pursuant to Fed. 7 R. Evid. 502(d), stating that the production of materials in this case shall not 8 constitute a waiver by the producing party of any privilege applicable to those 9 documents. However, Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) applies only to the attorney-client

10 privilege and the work product protection. Fed. R. Evid. 502 (“The following 11 provisions apply in the circumstances set out, to disclosure of a communication or 12 information covered by the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection.”).

13 Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 14 502(d), the production of any documents in this proceeding shall not, for the 15 purposes of this proceeding or any other federal or state proceeding, constitute a 16 waiver by the producing party of the attorney-client privilege or work-product

17 protection. If the parties would like the Court to issue an Order applying to other 18 forms of privilege, they must submit a motion that outlines this Court’s authority to 19 issue such an Order. This Order shall not be interpreted to waive the right of any

20 party to review documents prior to their production in discovery in this case. 21 1 PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 3 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 4 proprietary, or private information for which special protection may be warranted. 5 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the 6 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this agreement 7 is consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). It does not confer blanket protection on all 8 disclosures or responses to discovery, the protection it affords from public disclosure 9 and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to 10 confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles, and it does not 11 presumptively entitle parties to file confidential information under seal. See 12 Kamakana v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). 13 2. “CONFIDENTIAL” MATERIAL 14 “Confidential” material shall include the following documents and tangible 15 things produced or otherwise exchanged: social security numbers, medical records 16 and similar personal information; the parties’ financial records; confidential 17 information in the personnel files of Plaintiff-Intervenor and of employees not party 18 to this action, Defendant’s records concerning patient calls; contact information of 19 witnesses; and Defendant’s non-public business information that is not subject to 20 public disclosure. 21 1 3. SCOPE 2 The protections conferred by this agreement cover not only confidential material

3 (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from 4 confidential material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of 5 confidential material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by

6 parties or their counsel that might reveal confidential material. However, the 7 protections conferred by this agreement do not cover information that is in the public 8 domain or becomes part of the public domain through trial or otherwise. 9 4. ACCESS TO AND USE OF CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL

10 4.1 Basic Principles. A receiving party may use confidential material that 11 is disclosed or produced by another party or by a non-party in connection with this 12 case only for prosecuting, defending, attempting to settle this litigation, or in any

13 post-litigation consent decree compliance monitoring. Confidential material may be 14 disclosed only to the categories of persons and under the conditions described in this 15 agreement. Confidential material must be stored and maintained by a receiving party 16 at a location and in a secure manner that ensures that access is limited to the persons

17 authorized under this agreement. 18 4.2 Disclosure of “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items. Unless 19 otherwise ordered by the court or permitted in writing by the designating party, a

20 receiving party may disclose any confidential material only to: 21 1 (a) the receiving party’s counsel of record in this action, as well as 2 employees of counsel to whom it is reasonably necessary to disclose the information

3 for this litigation; 4 (b) the officers, directors, and employees (including in house 5 counsel) of the receiving party to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this

6 litigation, unless the parties agree that a particular document or material produced is 7 for Attorney’s Eyes Only; 8 (c) experts and consultants to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary 9 for this litigation and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be

10 Bound” (Exhibit A); 11 (d) the court, court personnel, and court reporters and their staff; 12 (e) copy or imaging services retained by counsel to assist in the

13 duplication of confidential material, provided that counsel for the party retaining the 14 copy or imaging service instructs the service not to disclose any confidential material 15 to third parties and to immediately return all originals and copies of any confidential 16 material;

17 (f) during their depositions, witnesses in the action to whom 18 disclosure is reasonably necessary and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and 19 Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A), unless otherwise agreed by the designating

20 party or ordered by the court. Pages of transcribed deposition testimony or exhibits 21 to depositions that reveal confidential material must be separately bound by the court 1 reporter and may not be disclosed to anyone except as permitted under this 2 agreement;

3 (g) the author or recipient of a document containing the information 4 or a custodian or other person who otherwise possessed or knew the information; 5 and

6 (h) mediators or settlement judges utilized in the litigation to attempt 7 settlement of claims.

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

Related

Russell C. Larson v. Northrop Corporation
21 F.3d 1164 (D.C. Circuit, 1994)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Medical Response Ambulance Service Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-american-medical-response-waed-2020.