Opico v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., C18-1579-RSL. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20190409f53
Visitors: 10
Filed: Apr. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 08, 2019
Summary: Stipulated Motion for Entry of Protective Order ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . T. Tyler Santiago Donald G. Grant Anderson Santiago, PLLC Donald G. Grant, P.S. 787 Maynard Ave. South Washougal Town Square, Suite 245 Suite #201 1700 Main Street Seattle, WA 98104 Washougal, WA 98671 Dear Counsel: On April 1, 2019, the Court received your proposed "Stipulated Protective Order." Dkt. #13. Pursuant t
Summary: Stipulated Motion for Entry of Protective Order ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . T. Tyler Santiago Donald G. Grant Anderson Santiago, PLLC Donald G. Grant, P.S. 787 Maynard Ave. South Washougal Town Square, Suite 245 Suite #201 1700 Main Street Seattle, WA 98104 Washougal, WA 98671 Dear Counsel: On April 1, 2019, the Court received your proposed "Stipulated Protective Order." Dkt. #13. Pursuant to..
More
Stipulated Motion for Entry of Protective Order
ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.
T. Tyler Santiago Donald G. Grant
Anderson Santiago, PLLC Donald G. Grant, P.S.
787 Maynard Ave. South Washougal Town Square, Suite 245
Suite #201 1700 Main Street
Seattle, WA 98104 Washougal, WA 98671
Dear Counsel:
On April 1, 2019, the Court received your proposed "Stipulated Protective Order." Dkt. #13.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), protective orders may be entered to protect confidential commercial information and/or to limit the scope of specific disclosures. Such protective orders may issue upon a showing of good cause.
Although parties may agree on confidentiality among themselves, when they request that the Court be involved, the proposed order must be narrowly drawn, identifying both the type of information that is to be protected and, if not obvious, the reason such protection is warranted. The order must also comply with the applicable federal and local procedural rules.
The stipulated protective order submitted in this case is deficient in the following respect:
The description of "confidential and proprietary materials and information" as including "information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law," is too broad. Any protective order entered by the Court must identify the class or type of documents subject to the order and explain the need for confidentiality if not apparent from the context.
The agreed protective order received by the Court will remain lodged in the file but will not be entered. The parties may resubmit a proposed order if they remedy the deficiency identified in this letter.
Source: Leagle
