Telquist McMillen Clare PLLC v. Clare

E.D. Washington

Telquist McMillen Clare PLLC v. Clare

DecidedApril 7, 2021

Docket4:18-cv-05045

StatusUnknown

This text of Telquist McMillen Clare PLLC v. Clare (Telquist McMillen Clare PLLC v. Clare) 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

Telquist McMillen Clare PLLC v. Clare, (E.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Apr 07, 2021 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 TELQUIST MCMILLEN CLARE PLLC, 10 a Washington Professional Limited No. 4:18-CV-05045-SAB 11 Liability Company; and ANDREA J. 12 CLARE, individually, ORDER DENYING MOTION 13 Plaintiff, FOR ENTRY OF 14 v. CONFIDENTIALITY 15 KEVIN P. CLARE, STIPULATION AND 16 Defendant. PROTECTIVE ORDER 17 18 Before the Court is the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Entry of 19 Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order, ECF No. 81. The parties agree 20 and request that the Court enter a protective order to govern the disclosure of 21 confidential business information and other sensitive information in this case. For 22 the reasons discussed herein, the motion is DENIED. 23 The product of pretrial discovery is presumptively public, although Federal 24 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows a district court to override this presumption 25 upon a showing of good cause. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. District 26 Court—Northern Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 26(c) 27 provides that a “court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or 28 person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” 1 Prior to the grant of a protective order, the moving party must certify it has 2 “conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve 3 the dispute without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (emphasis added). 4 In general, a court-issued protective order is less necessary since Rule 5(d) 5 was amended to only require filing discovery material actually used in support of 6 an action or motion. Because not all discovery material need be filed, most 7 discovery material is not readily accessible to the public. Therefore, the primary 8 concern regarding confidential materials is how the parties themselves handle such 9 material. When, as here, the parties agree that certain information should remain 10 confidential, it may be prudent for the parties to enter into a written agreement 11 setting forth what information shall remain private. However, it is unnecessary for 12 such an agreement to have this Court’s imprimatur to be valid. 13 This Court will not hesitate to issue a protective order when it is necessary; 14 however, the moving party or parties must demonstrate good cause exists and must 15 bear the “burden of showing specific prejudice or harm” that will result if no 16 protective order is granted. Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th 17 Cir. 2002). In other words, the moving party must demonstrate why the parties 18 cannot resolve the issue without court action—a standard that will generally not be 19 met when the parties agree to the terms of a proposed protective order. 20 The motion at hand fails to demonstrate specific harm or prejudice that will 21 result if no protective order is granted. Additionally, the parties appear to agree on 22 what material is appropriate for discovery and how it should be handled. 23 Accordingly, the Court denies the stipulated motion. 24 The Court commends the parties and encourages them to continue 25 cooperating with respect to the handling of potentially sensitive discovery material. 26 The parties may, upon a proper showing tied to specific discovery material, move 27 the Court to seal certain filings or for a protective order. 28 // l Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. The parties’ Stipulated Motion for Entry of Confidentiality Stipulation 3}} and Protective Order, ECF No. 81, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter 5|| this Order and to provide copies to counsel. DATED this 7th day of April 2021.

8 9 Silay Ecc thar Stanley A. Bastian 12 Chief United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22) 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONFIDENTIALITY

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

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Apr 07, 2021 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 TELQUIST MCMILLEN CLARE PLLC, 10 a Washington Professional Limited No. 4:18-CV-05045-SAB 11 Liability Company; and ANDREA J. 12 CLARE, individually, ORDER DENYING MOTION 13 Plaintiff, FOR ENTRY OF 14 v. CONFIDENTIALITY 15 KEVIN P. CLARE, STIPULATION AND 16 Defendant. PROTECTIVE ORDER 17 18 Before the Court is the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Entry of 19 Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order, ECF No. 81. The parties agree 20 and request that the Court enter a protective order to govern the disclosure of 21 confidential business information and other sensitive information in this case. For 22 the reasons discussed herein, the motion is DENIED. 23 The product of pretrial discovery is presumptively public, although Federal 24 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows a district court to override this presumption 25 upon a showing of good cause. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. District 26 Court—Northern Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 26(c) 27 provides that a “court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or 28 person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” 1 Prior to the grant of a protective order, the moving party must certify it has 2 “conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve 3 the dispute without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (emphasis added). 4 In general, a court-issued protective order is less necessary since Rule 5(d) 5 was amended to only require filing discovery material actually used in support of 6 an action or motion. Because not all discovery material need be filed, most 7 discovery material is not readily accessible to the public. Therefore, the primary 8 concern regarding confidential materials is how the parties themselves handle such 9 material. When, as here, the parties agree that certain information should remain 10 confidential, it may be prudent for the parties to enter into a written agreement 11 setting forth what information shall remain private. However, it is unnecessary for 12 such an agreement to have this Court’s imprimatur to be valid. 13 This Court will not hesitate to issue a protective order when it is necessary; 14 however, the moving party or parties must demonstrate good cause exists and must 15 bear the “burden of showing specific prejudice or harm” that will result if no 16 protective order is granted. Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th 17 Cir. 2002). In other words, the moving party must demonstrate why the parties 18 cannot resolve the issue without court action—a standard that will generally not be 19 met when the parties agree to the terms of a proposed protective order. 20 The motion at hand fails to demonstrate specific harm or prejudice that will 21 result if no protective order is granted. Additionally, the parties appear to agree on 22 what material is appropriate for discovery and how it should be handled. 23 Accordingly, the Court denies the stipulated motion. 24 The Court commends the parties and encourages them to continue 25 cooperating with respect to the handling of potentially sensitive discovery material. 26 The parties may, upon a proper showing tied to specific discovery material, move 27 the Court to seal certain filings or for a protective order. 28 // l Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. The parties’ Stipulated Motion for Entry of Confidentiality Stipulation 3}} and Protective Order, ECF No. 81, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter 5|| this Order and to provide copies to counsel. DATED this 7th day of April 2021.

8 9 Silay Ecc thar Stanley A. Bastian 12 Chief United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22) 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONFIDENTIALITY

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Telquist McMillen Clare PLLC v. Clare, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/telquist-mcmillen-clare-pllc-v-clare-waed-2021.