Russell v. GC Services Limited Partnership

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Washington
DecidedJanuary 24, 2020
Docket2:19-cv-00273
StatusUnknown

This text of Russell v. GC Services Limited Partnership (Russell v. GC Services Limited Partnership) 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
Russell v. GC Services Limited Partnership, (E.D. Wash. 2020).

Opinion

2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Jan 24, 2020 4

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 GERALD RUSSELL, NO: 2:19-CV-273-RMP 8 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 9 v. ORDER

10 GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 11 Defendant. 12

13 BEFORE THE COURT is the parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated 14 Protective Order, ECF No. 18. A district court may enter a protective order upon a 15 showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Having reviewed the proposed order 16 and the record, the Court finds that good cause exists to enter the parties’ proposed 17 Stipulated Protective Order. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 18 Parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order, ECF No. 18, is 19 GRANTED. The Protective Order is set forth below. 20 // 21 // 1 PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 1. As used in this Protective Order, these terms have the following 3 meanings: 4 (a) “Attorneys” means counsel of record or other counsel specifically

5 retained to represent a party related to this case; 6 (b) “Confidential” documents are documents designated pursuant to 7 paragraph 2;

8 (c) “Documents” are all materials within the scope of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 34; 10 (d) “Outside Vendors” means messenger, copy, coding, and other 11 clerical-services vendors not employed by a party or its Attorneys;

12 and 13 (e) “Written Assurance” means an executed document in the form 14 attached as Exhibit A.

15 2. A Party may designate a document “Confidential,” to protect 16 information within the scope of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 17 3. All Confidential documents, along with the information contained in 18 the documents, shall be used solely for the purpose of this action, and no person

19 receiving such documents shall, directly or indirectly, use, transfer, disclose, or 20 communicate in any way the documents or their contents to any person other than 21 those specified in paragraph 4. Any other use is prohibited. 1 4. Access to any Confidential document shall be limited to: 2 (a) the Court and its staff; 3 (b) attorneys, their law firms, and their Outside Vendors; 4 (c) persons shown on the face of the document to have authored or

5 received it; 6 (d) court reporters retained to transcribe testimony; 7 (e) the parties;

8 (f) outside independent persons (i.e., persons not currently or 9 formerly employed by, consulting with, or otherwise associated 10 with any party) who are retained by a party or its attorneys to 11 provide assistance as mock jurors or focus group members or the

12 like, or to furnish technical or expert services, and/or to give 13 testimony in this action. 14 5. Third parties producing documents in the course of this action may also

15 designate documents as “Confidential,” subject to the same protections and 16 constraints as the parties to the action. A copy of this Protective Order shall be 17 served along with any subpoena served in connection with this action. All 18 documents produced by such third parties shall be treated as “Confidential” for a

19 period of 14 days from the date of their production, and during that period any party 20 may designate such documents as “Confidential” pursuant to the terms of this 21 Protective Order. 1 6. Each person appropriately designated pursuant to paragraph 4(f) to 2 receive Confidential information shall execute a “Written Assurance” in the form 3 attached as Exhibit A. Opposing counsel shall be notified at least 14 days prior to 4 disclosure to any such person who is known to be an employee or agent of, or

5 consultant to, any competitor of the party whose designated documents are sought 6 to be disclosed. Such notice shall provide a reasonable description of the outside 7 independent person to whom disclosure is sought sufficient to permit objection to be

8 made. If a party objects in writing to such disclosure within 14 days after receipt of 9 notice, no disclosure shall be made until the party seeking disclosure obtains the 10 prior approval of the Court or the objecting party. 11 7. All depositions or portions of depositions taken in this action that

12 contain confidential information may be designated “Confidential” and thereby 13 obtain the protections accorded other “Confidential” documents. Confidentiality 14 designations for depositions shall be made either on the record or by written notice

15 to the other party within 14 days of receipt of the transcript. Unless otherwise 16 agreed, depositions shall be treated as “Confidential” during the 14-day period 17 following receipt of the transcript. The deposition of any witness (or any portion of 18 such deposition) that encompasses Confidential information shall be taken only in

19 the presence of persons who are qualified to have access to such information. 20 8. Any party who inadvertently fails to identify documents as 21 “Confidential” shall, promptly upon discovery of its oversight, provide written 1 notice of the error and substitute appropriately-designated documents. Any party 2 receiving such improperly-designated documents shall retrieve such documents 3 from persons not entitled to receive those documents and, upon receipt of the 4 substitute documents, shall return or destroy the improperly-designated documents.

5 9. If a party files a document containing Confidential information with the 6 Court, it shall do so in compliance with the Electronic Case Filing Procedures for 7 the Filing of Sealed Documents for Civil Cases for the Eastern District of

8 Washington. Prior to disclosure at trial or a hearing of materials or information 9 designated “Confidential,” the parties may seek further protections against public 10 disclosure from the Court. Any party requesting protections against public 11 disclosure must comply with the Ninth Circuit’s directives for doing so, as set forth

12 in Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu. 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–81 (9th Cir. 13 2006). As the Ninth Circuit has explained, “Those who seek to maintain the secrecy 14 of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of

15 showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy.” Id. at 1180 (citation omitted). 16 Regarding Confidential documents attached to non-dispositive motions, the parties 17 must demonstrate good cause to maintain their secrecy. Id. 18 10. Any party may request a change in the designation of any information

19 designated “Confidential.” Any such document shall be treated as designated until 20 the change is completed. If the requested change in designation is not agreed to, the 21 party seeking Confidential treatment may move the Court for appropriate relief, 1 “Confidential” in the action may be affected. In addition, the following procedure 2 shall apply: 3 (a) The parties must make every attempt to resolve any dispute 4 regarding Confidential designations without court involvement.

5 Any motion regarding Confidential designations or for a 6 protective order must include a certification, in the motion or in 7 a declaration or affidavit, that the movant has engaged in a good

8 faith meet and confer conference with other affected parties in an 9 effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The 10 certification must list the date, manner, and participants to the 11 conference. A good faith effort to confer requires a face-to-face

12 meeting or a telephone conference.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Russell v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-gc-services-limited-partnership-waed-2020.