Patrick Clarke; Christine Bauknecht; Mary Ann Davis; Freda Lorriaine Taylor v....

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON PATRICK CLARKE, an individual; CHRISTINE BAUKNECHT, an NO. 2:24-CV-0434-TOR individual; MARY ANN DAVIS, an individual; FREDA LORRIAINE ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ RULE TAYLOR, an individual, 26(c) MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 10 Plaintiffs, 11 v. PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH HEALTH; PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES; PROVIDENCE HEALTH AND SERVICES – WASHINGTON D/B/A PROVIDENCE; PROVIDENCE ST. MARY MEDICAL CENTER; AND PROVIDENCE MEDICAL GROUP D/B/A PROVIDENCE MEDICAL GROUP SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON NEUROSURGERY, A/K/A PMG NEUROSCIENCE INSTITUTE, WALLA WALLA A/K/A NEUROSCIENCE INSTITUTE D/B/A PROVIDENCE, 20 Defendants.

1 BEFORE THE COURT are Defendants’ Rule 26(c) Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 66) and Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion to Authorize Use of Companion Case Discovery (ECF No. 68). These matters were submitted for consideration without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ Rule 26(c) Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 66) is DENIED in part and Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion to Authorize Use of Companion Case Discovery (ECF No. 68) is GRANTED in part.

9 BACKGROUND 10 This case arises out of claims regarding procedures for unnecessary spine surgeries performed by Jason A. Dreyer, D.O. (“Dr. Dreyer”) that stem from a multitude of related cases in the Eastern District of Washington against Defendants (“Providence”). ECF No. 1. Previously, this Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Discovery and continued Plaintiffs’ response, Providence’s reply, and the hearing for Providence’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. ECF No. 63.

16 Plaintiffs requested use of discovery obtained in cases Estes v. Providence Health & Services – Washington, et al., 4:21-cv-5042-TOR (“Estes”) and Batten, et al. v. Providence St. Joseph Health, et al., 2:23-cv-0097-TOR (“Batten”) to use for their arguments in Providence’s summary judgment motion. ECF No. 50. The Court expressed their weariness to proceed with normal discovery because of Providence’s history of court orders for compelling discovery. ECF No. 65 at 6.

2 However, the Court decided to provide the parties the chance to proceed normally.

3 Id. The Court encouraged the parties to make a proper effort to resolve the discovery issues outside the court. ECF No. 65 at 7. On October 16, 2025, a Stipulated Motion for Protective Order was filed and subsequently granted. ECF Nos. 65, 70.

7 On October 31, 2025, Providence filed a Motion for Protective Order. ECF No. 66. Providence requests that they shall be allowed to continue reviewing and producing documents in response to Plaintiffs’ requests and provide a privilege log by or on December 7, 2025. ECF No. 66 at 11. At this point, Providence has not filed a privilege log. The second request states that Providence shall not be required to produce or stipulate to the use of all discovery produced in the companion matters but instead review the documents for responsiveness to discovery requests. ECF No. 66 at 11.

15 DISCUSSION 16 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(c), “A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c). In this motion, the movant must include a certification that he or she have acted in good faith to confer with the other parties to resolve the dispute outside court action. Id. In that case, “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense[.]” FED. R. CIV. P. 26. The burden to show good cause is on the movant of the motion by showing harm or prejudice will arise from the discovery.

4 Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). If a court finds particularized harm will result from disclosure of information to the public, then it balances the public and private interests to decide whether a protective order is necessary.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063–64 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002)).

10 For collateral litigants, as an initial matter, “the litigant[s] must demonstrate the relevance of the protected discovery to the collateral proceedings and its general discoverability therein.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 13 1122, 1132 (9th Cir. 2003). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit “‘strongly favors access to discovery materials’ for individuals engaged in other litigation because ‘[a]llowing the fruits of one litigation to facilitate preparation in other cases advances the interests of judicial economy by avoiding the wasteful duplication of discovery.’” Fierro Cordero v. Stemilt AG Servs., LLC, 142 F.4th 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003)).

20 Providence state the date of their meet and confer with Plaintiffs and provide evidence of communications to show acts to confer. ECF No. 66 at 5; 67.

2 Providence requests that the Court grant a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(c). ECF No. 66 at 11. Providence argues Plaintiffs’ request for Production Nos. 1 and 2 and their Stipulated Discovery Plan are overboard and not specific to their needs for this case. ECF No. 66 at 7.

6 Additionally, they state that there is no presumption of discoverability for companion matters. ECF No. 66 at 9. Plaintiffs respond that Providence fails to show good cause under Rule 26(c). ECF No. 68 at 10. Additionally, they argue that this argument is barred by Collateral Estoppel, inconsistent with judicial economy and this Court’s direction. ECF No. 68. at 11.

11 Providence must show good cause. Providence states that good cause exists because the discovery requested is overbroad and not proportional to their needs.

13 ECF No. 66 at 7. Providence argues that Plaintiffs request allows “unlimited access to a large volume of discovery” from seven other cases but does not specify a connection between their claims and defenses. ECF No. 66 at 7. Providence furthers that this request is overbroad and disproportionate because the discovery in the other cases include matters not relevant to this case. Id. Providence states that Plaintiffs are not parties to cases such as Estes, Batten, Palmer v. Dreyer et al., Spokane County Case. No. 21-2-01299-32 (“Palmer”), Isabel Lindsey and Charles Lindsey v. Jason A. Dreyer, DO, et al., Spokane County Case. No. 23-2-04365-32 (“Lindsey’), Glenda Rae et al. v. MultiCare Health System et al., Spokane County Case. No. 22-2-06780-8 (“Rae”) or Caroline Angulo et al. v. Providence Health & Services – Washington et al., W.D. Wash. Case No. 2:22-cv-00915-JLR (“Angulo”). ECF No. 66 at 8. Providence expressed willingness to discuss “factual categories of documents from the Companion Matters to Produce on a priority basis” as long as Plaintiffs reconsider their position on the matter. ECF No. 66 at 8. Providence also raises a concern of attorney-client privilege for requests of documents showing specific crimes such as fraudulent concealment and corporate negligence. ECF No. 66 at 8. Providence requests that, despite Batten, they should be allowed to consider their position regarding privilege in this case.

11 ECF No. 66.

12 Plaintiffs’ respond that Providence did not show good cause because they did not identify a concrete harm. ECF No. 68 at 10. Plaintiffs’ filed Cross-Motion to Authorize Use of Companion Case Discovery in their response to Providences’ Motion for Protective Order. ECF Nos. 68; 66. Plaintiffs request that they may use the discovery and deposition materials previously ordered for production or permitted for use from Estes and Batten, including Palmer, to avoid duplicative motions and lower the burden on the parties. ECF No. 68 at 11.

19 In the court’s previous Order, the Court denied the use of Batten and Estes but stated that it was open to reconsidering this request. ECF No. 63 at 7.

1 Notably, the Court recognizes that Plaintiffs request the use of only three cases: Batten, Estes, and Palmer. ECF No. 68 at 11.

3 Providence alludes to the burden and the proportionality of the requests as a harm. ECF No. 66 at 7. The relevance of this discovery relates to similar issues and allegations regarding Providence. As mentioned in the Court’s previous Order, Batten and Estes are particularly informative on this matter. ECF No. 63 at 7. As such, the Court will follow Batten’s precedent.

8 Based on the history of this case, related matters, and to prevent prolonging this case, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ cross-motion in part and denies Providence’s Motion for Protective Order in part. Similarly, for Estes, Batten, and Palmer, Plaintiffs are permitted to use discovery produced in these cases related to the qui tam action subject to the same redaction requirements such as personally identifying information of individuals other than Plaintiffs. This should resolve any concerns regarding confidential information regarding other individuals.

15 Similarly to Batten, if Plaintiffs wish to seek additional materials or discovery, including from cases not addressed in this Order, Plaintiffs must identify with specificity the relevant documents sought and explain why they are necessary.

18 // // ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. Defendants’ Rule 26(c) Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 66) is 3 DENIED in part.

4 2. Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion to Authorize Use of Companion Case 5 Discovery (ECF No. 68) is GRANTED in part.

6 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish copies to counsel.

8 DATED January 12, 2026.

<> United States District Judge ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ RULE 26(c) MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE