Marie v. Pacific Life Insurance Company

Opinion

FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON May 22, 2025 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SIMONA G. MARIE and THOMAS LEWIS, spouses, and ALTCONT, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, No. 4:23-CV-05093-RLP Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING STIPULATED v. PROTECTIVE ORDER PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation; HARDING FINANCIAL PARTNERS, INC., a foreign corporation; ANDREW J. BROWN, an individual; INC, a foreign corporation; CORPORATION; a foreign corporation, THOMAS FOREST, an individual; and UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS 1 through 5, unknown individuals and/or entities,

Defendants.

Before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation for Protective Order, ECF No. 84.

The parties seek a protective order to protect the confidentiality of documents

claimed to be confidential, proprietary, or private. Of note, the parties refer to

unspecified documents that will “presumptively” be deemed confidential. ECF No.

84 at 3.

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). District courts have discretion on whether or not to grant a protective

order or seal records. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599, 98 S.

Ct. 1306 (1978).

“Generally, the public can gain access to litigation documents and

information produced during discovery unless the party opposing disclosure shows

‘good cause’ why a protective order is necessary.” Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v.

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). “For good cause to exist,

the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or

harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Id. at 1210-11. Specific

prejudice or harm arising from the disclosure of specific documents must be

demonstrated. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th

Cir. 2003).

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).

The parties ask the Court to sign a Protective Order that was drafted and

agreed to by the parties. While the parties agree that the disclosure of some

categories of documents could result in harm, the parties’ stipulated order does not

attempt to demonstrate good cause or how the disclosure of a broad range of

unidentified documents would result in specific prejudice or harm.

It is this Court’s preference to not enter general Protective Orders that

simply set forth the parties’ agreement for handling “confidential” materials. The

parties are free to contract between themselves regarding disclosure of information

produced in discovery and pursue appropriate remedies in the event of breach;

however, the Court will not be party to such an agreement.

If the parties wish to file a motion for protective order specifically

identifying documents subject to protection, the Court will reconsider issuing a

narrowly tailored protective order. Alternatively, the parties may file specific items

of discovery in the court record and ask the Court to seal specific documents.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1 1. The parties’ Stipulation for Protective Order, ECF No. 84, is DENIED 2 without prejudice. 3 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and forward copies 4 to the parties. 5 DATED May 22, 2025. ° LLC Us 7 Rebecca L. Pennell United States District Judge 8 9