Summary
This document is an order from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington addressing the parties’ Amended Stipulated Protective Order in Eunice Youmans v. Chelan-Douglas Land Trust. The court grants protection for specified medical, financial, tax, and personnel information but declines to protect membership-list contact information without a more specific showing of good cause. The order sets procedures governing designation, disclosure, challenges, filing under seal, and return or destruction of protected materials.
Holdings
- A court may enter a stipulated protective order under Rule 26(c) only when the party seeking protection demonstrates good cause and specific prejudice; the good-cause requirement is not waived by the parties' stipulation.
- Good cause supported protection of Plaintiff's medical records and bills, bank-account and financial information, tax records, and personnel files of departed Executive Directors, but the parties did not establish good cause to protect home addresses, phone numbers, and contact information in membership lists.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court could enter the parties' stipulated protective order only upon an independent finding of good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
- Whether the parties demonstrated good cause to protect the specified medical, financial, tax, personnel, and membership-list information from disclosure.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (9)
- In re Midland National Life Insurance Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litigation, 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
- Cordero v. Stemilt AG Services, 142 F.4th 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2025)(followed)
- Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2003)(followed)
- Beckman Industries, Inc. v. International Insurance Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999)(followed)
- Yellowcake, Inc. v. Dashgo, Inc., 2022 WL 3226824, at *10 (E.D. Cal. July 21, 2022)(distinguished)
- Snedigar v. Hoddersen, 114 Wn.2d at 163-64, 786 P.2d 781 (1990)(distinguished)
- Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1186 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
- In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 428 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…