Temira Paulson and Matthew Paulson v. Highstreet Insurance Partners, Inc.; Simmons Agency d/b/a/ Highstreet Insurance & Financial Services West

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: October 30, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00061
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Oct 30, 2025

3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9 TEMIRA PAULSON and MATTHEW PAULSON, 10 No. 2:25-cv-00061-RLP Plaintiffs,

11 v. ORDER DENYING STIPULATED 12 HIGHSTREET INSURANCE PROTECTIVE ORDER PARTNERS, INC.; SIMMONS 13 AGENCY d/b/a/ Highstreet Insurance & Financial Services West 14 Defendants. 15

16 Before the Court is the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order, ECF No. 14.

17 The parties seek a protective order to protect confidential material including: (a)

18 names and any identifying information for policyholders who are not party to this

19 litigation; (b) financial information; (c) proprietary underwriting materials; (d)

20 claims analyses and loss reports; (e) proprietary agency evaluations; and (f) any 1 other information to be requested in discovery that the producing party has

2 maintained as confidential and proprietary in the normal course of its business.

3 The Court declines to sign off on the parties’ agreed protective order, as it is

4 too broad. There is a strong presumption in favor of access to court records. In re

5 Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Pracs. Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th

6 Cir. 2012). Even when parties agree to protective measures for discovery materials,

7 courts generally favor allowing access to such materials by individuals involved in

8 related litigation, as this promotes judicial economy. Cordero v. Stemilt AG Servs.,

9 142 F.4th 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2025) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

10 Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003)).

11 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order

12 to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue

13 burden or expense.” The party seeking a protective order has the burden of

14 establishing good cause and must show prejudice “for each particular document it

15 seeks to protect.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. “Broad allegations of harm,

16 unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the

17 Rule 26(c) test.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir.

18 1992). The requirement to demonstrate good cause cannot be waived, and remains

19 even where the parties stipulate to the order. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S.

20 Dist. Ct.--N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). 1 The Court denies the parties’ request for a protective order without 2|| prejudice. The parties are free to file an amended motion that takes into account the 3|| foregoing authorities. 4 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order, ECF No. 14, is DENIED. The Clerk shall enter this Order and forward 6|| copies to counsel 7 DATED October 30, 2025.

9 REBECCA L. PENNELL United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER