SCHWINDT v. MENZIES AVIATION, INC.

Case No. C16-1586-JCC.

DAVID SCHWINDT, Plaintiff, v. MENZIES AVIATION, INC., Defendant.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity
Nature of Suit: 360 P.I.: Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

David Schwindt, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie D. Umland , PALACE LAW OFFICES.

Menzies Aviation Inc, Defendant, represented by David M. Schoeggl , LANE POWELL PC & David W. Howenstine , LANE POWELL PC.


ORDER

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 order1 (Dkt. No. 12) and GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to compel the safety manual (Dkt. No. 10). The Court notes, however, that it does not enter Defendant's proposed protective order exactly as presented. Rather than state that safety manuals are confidential, the order states that they, and other similar materials, may be confidential. With that clarification, the Court reminds Plaintiff that even with a protective order in place, the non-designating party can always challenge a confidentiality designation.

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.

FootNotes


1. The Protective Order itself shall be docketed as a separate entry.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases