JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff David Schwindt's motion to compel (Dkt. No. 10) and Defendant Menzies Aviation's motion for a protective order (Dkt. No. 12). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS the motion to compel and GRANTS the motion for protective order for the reasons explained herein.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that discovery motions are strongly disfavored. Here, the two motions are related and it is apparent that this dispute could have been resolved without the Court's interference. Plaintiff moves to compel production of Defendant's safety manual. (Dkt. No. 10 at 1.) Defendant has agreed to produce the safety manual, provided Plaintiff stipulate to a protective order, which Plaintiff has refused to do. (Dkt. No. 12 at 2.) Defendant therefore moves for entry of a protective order substantially similar to the Western District of Washington's Model Stipulated Protective Order. (Id. at 1.)
The Court is inclined to agree with both parties. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant's motion for a protective order
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery (Dkt. No. 10) and Defendant's motion for a protective order (Dkt. No. 12) are GRANTED. Defendant shall produce the safety manual within 14 days of the entry of the protective order.