Prestmo v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

W.D. Washington

Prestmo v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

DecidedJuly 22, 2024

Docket2:24-cv-00610

StatusUnknown

This text of Prestmo v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (Prestmo v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Prestmo v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 DAWN PRESTMO and JEFF PRESTMO, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00610-TL husband and wife and the marital 12 community thereof, ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION 13 Plaintiffs, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER v. 14 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY 15 COMPANY, a foreign corporation, 16 Defendant. 17

18 This matter is before the Court on the Parties’ Stipulated Motion for Protective Order. 19 Dkt. No. 17. Having reviewed the motion and the relevant record, the Court GRANTS IN PART and 20 DENIES IN PART the motion with leave to refile. 21 The motion is DENIED as to the following clause: “Confidential material is not considered 22 part of the public domain at trial or otherwise when the Parties adhere to sections 4.2 and 4.3 of 23 this Order.” Dkt. No. 17 at 2 (22–24). The Court will not sanction a blanket agreement to 24 withhold materials from the public at trial, particularly in light of the public’s “general right to 1 inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” 2 Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 3 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)); see also Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 750 4 F.3d 776, 785 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that access to public

5 proceedings and records is an indispensable predicate to free expression about the workings of 6 government.”). Either Party may move to seal materials at trial if they deem it appropriate, and 7 the Court will consider the merits of each motion at that time. See Miller v. York Risk Servs. 8 Grp., No. C13-1419, 2014 WL 936307, at *2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 11, 2014) (“[A] proper protective 9 order cannot automatically apply through trial and beyond. Rather, only to the extent that [the 10 moving party] can carry its burden to show compelling reasons why some specific material 11 should be sealed will the court afford protection from disclosure during trial and beyond.”). 12 Accordingly, the Parties may submit for the Court’s consideration a new protective order 13 that does not include the above clause. 14 Dated this 22nd day of July 2024.

15 A 16 Tana Lin United States District Judge 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

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

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 DAWN PRESTMO and JEFF PRESTMO, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00610-TL husband and wife and the marital 12 community thereof, ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION 13 Plaintiffs, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER v. 14 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY 15 COMPANY, a foreign corporation, 16 Defendant. 17

18 This matter is before the Court on the Parties’ Stipulated Motion for Protective Order. 19 Dkt. No. 17. Having reviewed the motion and the relevant record, the Court GRANTS IN PART and 20 DENIES IN PART the motion with leave to refile. 21 The motion is DENIED as to the following clause: “Confidential material is not considered 22 part of the public domain at trial or otherwise when the Parties adhere to sections 4.2 and 4.3 of 23 this Order.” Dkt. No. 17 at 2 (22–24). The Court will not sanction a blanket agreement to 24 withhold materials from the public at trial, particularly in light of the public’s “general right to 1 inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” 2 Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 3 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)); see also Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 750 4 F.3d 776, 785 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that access to public

5 proceedings and records is an indispensable predicate to free expression about the workings of 6 government.”). Either Party may move to seal materials at trial if they deem it appropriate, and 7 the Court will consider the merits of each motion at that time. See Miller v. York Risk Servs. 8 Grp., No. C13-1419, 2014 WL 936307, at *2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 11, 2014) (“[A] proper protective 9 order cannot automatically apply through trial and beyond. Rather, only to the extent that [the 10 moving party] can carry its burden to show compelling reasons why some specific material 11 should be sealed will the court afford protection from disclosure during trial and beyond.”). 12 Accordingly, the Parties may submit for the Court’s consideration a new protective order 13 that does not include the above clause. 14 Dated this 22nd day of July 2024.

15 A 16 Tana Lin United States District Judge 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Prestmo v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prestmo-v-state-farm-fire-and-casualty-company-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack