10TH GEAR LLC, et al. v. PACCAR, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 10TH GEAR LLC, et al., 7 Case No. 2:23-cv-01933-RSL Plaintiffs, 8 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ vs. MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 9 OF UNREDACTED DOCUMENTS PACCAR, INC., Defendant.

13 THIS MATTER came before the Court on “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Unredacted Documents.” Dkt. 65. Having considered the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted, the Court finds that a party is generally not permitted to redact material from responsive documents based on its unilateral assessment of the material’s relevance, especially where, as here, a protective order governs the production and disclosure of confidential information and the parties are not competitors. See Corker v. Costco Wholesale, No. 2:19-cv- 0290-RSL, 2020 WL 1987060, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2020); Doe v. Trump, 329 F.R.D.

20 262, 275-76 (W.D. Wash. 2018); Krausz Indus., Ltd v. Romac Indus., Inc., No. 2:10-cv-1204- RSL, 2011 WL 13100750, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 10, 2011). While the Court recognizes that there may be instances where a single document includes separate sections that are clearly and convincingly irrelevant to the issues at hand, defendant has not made such a showing here.

24 // 25 // // 1 For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of unredacted responsive documents is GRANTED. Defendant shall re-produce the ESI documents containing relevance redactions in their entirety within fourteen days of the date of this Order and shall refrain from making relevance redactions going forward.

Dated this 15th day of December, 2025.

8 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge