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

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Washington
DecidedJanuary 13, 2026
Docket2:25-cv-00290
StatusUnknown

This text of Eunice Youmans v. Chelan-Douglas Land Trust; Doe(s) 1-100 employees of Chelan-Douglas Land Trust; and Corporation(s) XYZ 1-100 (Eunice Youmans v. Chelan-Douglas Land Trust; Doe(s) 1-100 employees of Chelan-Douglas Land Trust; and Corporation(s) XYZ 1-100) 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
Eunice Youmans v. Chelan-Douglas Land Trust; Doe(s) 1-100 employees of Chelan-Douglas Land Trust; and Corporation(s) XYZ 1-100, (E.D. Wash. 2026).

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Jan 13, 2026 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 EUNICE YOUMANS, an individual No. 2:25-CV-00290-RLP

8 Plaintiff PROTECTIVE ORDER

9 v. 10 CHELAN-DOUGLAS LAND TRUST; “DOE(S) 1-100” employees of 11 CHELAN-DOUGLAS LAND TRUST; and “CORPORATION(S) XYZ 1-100,” 12 Defendants. 13 Before the Court is the parties’ Amended Stipulated Protective Order, ECF 14 No. 15. Under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court, upon 15 motion of a party and upon good cause shown, “may make any order which justice 16 requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, 17 or undue burden or expense.” The Rule permits a court to order that “that the 18 disclosure or discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions.” FRCP 19 26(c)(2). 20 1 There is a strong presumption in favor of access to court records. In re 2 Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Pracs. Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th

3 Cir. 2012). Even when parties agree to protective measures for discovery materials, 4 courts generally favor allowing access to such materials by individuals involved in 5 related litigation, as this promotes judicial economy. Cordero v. Stemilt AG Servs.,

6 142 F.4th 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2025) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 7 Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003)). The party seeking a protective order has 8 the burden of establishing good cause and must show prejudice “for each particular 9 document it seeks to protect.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. “Broad allegations of harm,

10 unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the 11 Rule 26(c) test.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 12 1992). The requirement to demonstrate good cause cannot be waived, and remains

13 even where the parties stipulate to the order. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. 14 Dist. Ct.--N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). 15 The parties seek this protective order under Rule 26(c) to protect the 16 disclosure of Plaintiff’s medical records and bills, bank account, financial

17 information, and tax records, Defendant’s personnel files of departed Executive 18 Directors, and the home addresses, phone numbers, and contact information for 19 membership lists. The Court finds that the parties have demonstrated good cause to

20 grant the order with regards to Plaintiff’s medical records and bills, bank account, 1 financial information, and tax records and Defendant’s personnel files of departed 2 Executive Directors. The parties have shown that Plaintiff, Defendant, and the

3 departed Executive Directors all have significant privacy interests in this 4 information, and that harm would result from disclosure which outweighs the 5 public’s interest in disclosure.

6 However, the Court finds the parties have not demonstrated good cause to 7 seal the home addresses, phone numbers, and contact information for membership 8 lists. In support of their request, the parties cite to two cases – Yellowcake, Inc. v. 9 Dashgo, Inc., 2022 WL 3226824 at *10 (E.D. Cal. July 21, 2022) and Snedigar v.

10 Hoddersen, c, 159, 786 P.2d 781 (1990) – without analysis. Yellowcake concerned 11 a discovery request for a list of customers which a district court found was a 12 protectable trade secret. 2022 WL 3226824 at *10. Snedigar concerned the proper

13 standard for asserting a First Amendment right to association objection to 14 discovery, specifically in the context of a discovery request for a socialist party’s 15 meeting minutes. 114 Wn.2d at 163-64. 16 Here, the parties do not explain why the membership lists are a protectable

17 trade secret, or make any showing that anyone’s First Amendment rights will be 18 harmed by its disclosure. As such, the Court does not presently find good cause to 19 grant a protective order with regards to this information.

20 1 Still, the Court recognizes there may be circumstances which would 2 constitute good cause for a protective order to apply to the information. For

3 example, it may be the case that the contact information contained in the 4 membership lists was collected with the expectation that it would remain private. 5 The parties may file another motion for a protective order making a specific

6 showing of such circumstances, and how prejudice would result from disclosure of 7 the membership lists. Alternatively, the parties remain free to contract between 8 themselves regarding disclosure of the membership lists and pursue appropriate 9 remedies in the event of a breach.

10 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 11 1. The parties’ Amended Stipulated Protective Order, ECF No. 15, is 12 GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

13 2. The Court enters the following protective order: 14 PROTECTIVE ORDER 15 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS. Discovery in this action is likely to 16 involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for

17 which special protection may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby 18 stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective 19 Order. It does not confer blanket protection on all disclosures or responses to

20 discovery, the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 1 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 2 treatment under the applicable legal principles, and it does not presumptively

3 entitle parties to file confidential information under seal. 4 2. “CONFIDENTIAL” MATERIAL. “Confidential” material shall include the 5 following documents and tangible things produced or otherwise exchanged:

6 • Plaintiff’s medical records and bills, bank account, financial 7 information, and tax records would be subject to a protective order 8 because these records can cause annoyance and embarrassment on 9 Plaintiff that creates good cause for their protection. Fed. R. Civ. P.

10 26(c). Exposing Plaintiffs medical records and bills, bank account, 11 financial information, and tax records could result in specific harm 12 to Plaintiff if these records are not subject to the protective order.

13 See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1186 14 (9th Cir. 2006). 15 • Defendant’s personnel files of departed Executive Directors 16 employed before plaintiff. In re Roman Cath. Archbishop of

17 Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 428 (9th Cir. 2011) (personnel 18 files of retired employees not accused of wrongdoing are properly 19 the subject of a protective order).

20 1 3. SCOPE. The protections conferred by this agreement cover not only 2 confidential material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied

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

Related

In Re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Or.
661 F.3d 417 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Snedigar v. Hoddersen
786 P.2d 781 (Washington Supreme Court, 1990)
Columbia Legal Services v. Stemilt Ag Services, LLC
142 F.4th 1201 (Ninth Circuit, 2025)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Eunice Youmans v. Chelan-Douglas Land Trust; Doe(s) 1-100 employees of Chelan-Douglas Land Trust; and Corporation(s) XYZ 1-100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eunice-youmans-v-chelan-douglas-land-trust-does-1-100-employees-of-waed-2026.