Eunice Youmans v. Chelan-Douglas Land Trust, “Doe(S) 1-100” employees of Chelan-Douglas Land Trust; and “Corporation(S) XYZ 1-100,”

Opinion

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Nov 04, 2025 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

Plaintiff, No. 2:25-CV-00290-RLP v. CHELAN-DOUGLAS LAND TRUST, ORDER DENYING STIPULATED “DOE(S) 1-100” employees of PROTECTIVE ORDER CHELAN-DOUGLAS LAND TRUST; and “CORPORATION(S) XYZ 1- 100,” Defendants.

Before the Court is the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order, ECF No. 10.

The parties seek a protective order to protect confidential material including:

Plaintiff’s medical records and bills, Plaintiff’s bank account, financial

information, and tax records, and sensitive employee files and records;

Defendant’s budgetary information to the degree not already public, personnel materials of anyone other than plaintiff, salary surveys, internal policies,

procedures or training materials not publicly available, and client or member lists.

The Court declines to sign off on the parties’ agreed protective order, as it is

too broad. There is a strong presumption in favor of access to court records. In re

Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Pracs. Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th

Cir. 2012). Even when parties agree to protective measures for discovery materials,

courts generally favor allowing access to such materials by individuals involved in

related litigation, as this promotes judicial economy. Cordero v. Stemilt AG Servs.,

142 F.4th 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2025) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order

to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue

burden or expense.” The party seeking a protective order has the burden of

establishing good cause and must show prejudice “for each particular document it

seeks to protect.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. “Broad allegations of harm,

unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the

Rule 26(c) test.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir.

1992). The requirement to demonstrate good cause cannot be waived, and remains

even where the parties stipulate to the order. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S.

Dist. Ct.--N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). 1 The Court denies the parties’ request for a protective order without 2 prejudice. The parties are free to file an amended motion that takes into account the 3 foregoing authorities. 4 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order, ECF No. 10, is DENIED. The Clerk shall enter this Order and forward 6 copies to counsel 7 DATED November 3, 2025.

9 REBECCA L. PENNELL United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER