Rangel-Sembrano v. Adams County Sheriff's Office

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: July 25, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00003
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE 3 EASTER U N . S D . I S D T I R S I T C R T I C O T F C W O A U S R H T I NGTON Jul 25, 2025 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 SERAFIN RANGEL-SAMBRANO, No: 4:25-CV-00003-RLP 9 Plaintiff,

10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 11 ADAMS COUNTY SHERIFF'S 12 OFFICE, ADAMS COUNTY, EVAN ARMSTRONG, Corporal, Adams 13 County Sheriff's Office, in his individual capacity; DALE 14 WAGNER, Sheriff, Adams County Sheriff's Office, in his individual and 15 official capacity, Defendants. 16

17 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Revised Stipulated 18 Protective Order, ECF No. 11. The parties seek a protective order to protect 19 confidential material including: (1) “Medical, psychological, financial, family, 20 personnel, and arrest related records of plaintiff, officers, and/or other non-parties;” 1 and (2) “Records that implicate privacy rights of the defendants, plaintiff, or third 2 parties, including but not limited to personal identifying information (“PII”) such 3 as date of birth, social security number, personal home address, phone number, 4 email address, driver’s license or state identification number, personal financial

5 information, passport information, immigration status, criminal history and/or 6 criminal record numbers, any information protected from release by applicable

7 statute, and other unspecified PII.” Id. 8 There is a strong presumption in favor of access to court records. In re 9 Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Pracs. Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th 10 Cir. 2012). Even when parties agree to protective measures for discovery materials, 11 courts generally favor allowing access to such materials by individuals involved in

12 related litigation, as this promotes the judicial economy.1 Cordero v. Stemilt AG 13 Servs., LLC, 2025 WL 1902292 at *4-5 (9th Cir. July 10, 2025) (citing Foltz v. 14 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003)).

15 However, “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party 16 or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or 17

1 Here, there is an ongoing and related case where discovery materials may 18 overlap, further supporting the need for coordinated access to discovery materials. 19 See State of Washington v. Adams County Sheriff's Office et al, No. 25-2-01212-32 20

(Sup. Ct. Spokane Cnty 2025). 1 expense.” FRCP 26(c). The party seeking a protective order has the burden of 2 establishing good cause and must show prejudice “for each particular document it 3 seeks to protect.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 4 (9th Cir. 2003). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples

5 or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. 6 Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). The requirement to demonstrate 7 good cause cannot be waived, and remains even where the parties stipulate to the

8 order. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct.--N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 9 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). 10 It is this Court’s preference to not enter general Protective Orders that 11 simply set forth the parties’ agreement for handling “confidential” materials. Here,

12 the Parties have not set forth any allegations of potential harm should these 13 categories of information be released. While some categories, such as social 14 security numbers and home addresses, are specific and likely to meet this

15 threshold, other categories contain publicly available records that may not rise to 16 the same level of sensitivity or harm if disclosed. This is especially so with regards 17 to criminal history, much of which is a matter of public record. 18 The Court finds the categories of “confidential material” as defined by the

19 parties to be vague and overbroad. “Records that implicate privacy rights the

20 defendants, plaintiff, or third Parties” is a vague and broad description with an undefined reach. As for the parties’ definition of “PII,” they fail to describe 2|| specific harm resulting from the disclosure of such records. For these reasons, the Court declines to issue a protective order proposed by the parties. 4 The parties are free to contract between themselves regarding disclosure of 5|| information produced in discovery and pursue appropriate remedies in the event of 6|| breach; however, the Court will not be party to such an agreement. If the parties wish to file specific items of discovery in the court record and protect such items 8 || from public access, the Court will entertain a motion to seal or an application for a 9|| narrowly tailored protective order. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Revised Stipulated Protective Order, ECF No. 11, is DENIED. The District Court Executive shall enter this order and provide copies to counsel. 13 DATED July 25, 2025. □□□ 14 REBECCA L. PENNELL 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20

ORDER GRANTING IN PART JOINT MOTION FOR REVISED STIPULATED