1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

 

STANLEY WILLMS and JOYCE WILLMS, 

a marital community, 

 

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

GEORGIA-PACIFIC, Inc., 

 

 Defendant.

Case No. CR-05-5754 JKA

 MINUTE ORDER 

 Re: Docket #13

 

The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable J. Kelley Arnold:

The court has received the parties’ proposed stipulated protective order (Dkt. #13). For the reasons

stated below, the court DECLINES to enter the proposed stipulated order.

Litigants routinely enter agreements regarding the confidentiality of documents they exchange during

discovery. This court encourages such agreements, as they are often helpful in conducting discovery efficiently

and without the intervention of the court. The courts endorsement of such an agreement, however, however,

is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). 

Fed.R.Civ.P.26(c) governs the court’s power to enter protective orders. The rule requires the moving

party to show “good cause” before the court enters a protective order. A stipulated “blanket” protective order,

as proposed in this instance, is insufficiently specific to permit the court to determine if any party has met the

requirements of the rule. It also places discretion with the parties, rather than with the court. Additionally,

such “blanket” orders often exceed the scope of Rule 26(c). The court encourages, the parties to arrive at their

own agreements for the exchange of discovery, but declines to convert such agreements into an order of the

Case 3:05-cv-05754-JKA Document 15 Filed 08/23/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

In the absence of such an agreement, it may be necessary during the course of litigation to move for a contested

protective order. When the court reviews such a motion, it will consider the reasonableness of a party’s refusal to enter into

an agreement when it determines whether to award attorneys’ fees and sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P.37(a)(4).

2

When using the Western District of Washington’s electronic filing system (“CM-ECF”), a party may unilaterally

seal a document while awaiting the court’s ruling on a motion to seal it.

ORDER

Page - 2

court.1

The parties proposed protective order does not appear to authorize the sealing of documents that they

file with this court. Because of the reference to documents “under seal” in paragraph 3(a) of the proposed

stipulated order, the court would call this related matter to the parties attention. As stated in Local Rules W.D.

Wash. CR 5(g), “[t]here is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files and records which may

be overcome only on a compelling showing that the public’s right of access is outweighed by the interests of

the public and the parties in protecting files, records, or documents from public view.” “A clear statement of

the facts” is required to justify the sealing and overcome the public access presumption. Local Rule 5(g) sets

forth the procedure for filing a motion to seal documents filed with the court. This procedure is the sole means

by which a party may seal a document in a civil case before this court. A party may not seal a document

without concurrently filing a motion to seal the document. 2

The Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt.#13) will remain lodged in the file, but will not be entered.

Entered this 23rd day of August, 2006.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

By /s/ Kelly Miller

 Deputy Clerk

Case 3:05-cv-05754-JKA Document 15 Filed 08/23/06 Page 2 of 2