Opinions and documents
1 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Nov 04, 2025
2
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
9 EUNICE YOUMANS,
Plaintiff,
10 No. 2:25-CV-00290-RLP
v.
11
CHELAN-DOUGLAS LAND TRUST, ORDER DENYING STIPULATED
12 “DOE(S) 1-100” employees of PROTECTIVE ORDER
CHELAN-DOUGLAS LAND TRUST;
13 and “CORPORATION(S) XYZ 1-
100,”
14
Defendants.
15
16 Before the Court is the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order, ECF No. 10.
17 The parties seek a protective order to protect confidential material including:
18 Plaintiff’s medical records and bills, Plaintiff’s bank account, financial
19 information, and tax records, and sensitive employee files and records;
20 Defendant’s budgetary information to the degree not already public, personnel
1 materials of anyone other than plaintiff, salary surveys, internal policies,
2 procedures or training materials not publicly available, and client or member lists.
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. 10, is DENIED. The Clerk shall enter this Order and forward
6|| copies to counsel
7 DATED November 3, 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
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.