Alaska Employment Law

Judge Ralph Beistline has approved the parties’ stipulated protective order in an FMLA case.  The parties categorized sensitive information as either “Confidential Information” or “‘Attorneys’ Eyes Only’ Information,” though the significance of one category over the other is not clear, since the treatment of the information seems similar if not identical.

Judicial aproval of a stipulated protective order is not automatic.  For earlier treatment (in fact, a judge’s partial rejection) of a stipulated protective order, see Judge Sedwick’s opinion in Urich v. Fraize, 2008 WL 801970 (D.Alaska Mar. 24, 2008), discussed in an earlier posting.  In that opinion, Judge Sedwick rejected the defendant’s proposed protective order as unnecessarily restrictive (no reason to require plaintiff to file motion before using information supplied by defendant), but did require plaintiff to seal and mark as “confidential” certain material he might file in court, and to return all information after the close of litigation.  

In the matter before Beistline, the stipulation met the criteria set out in Sedwick’s opinion.

Kinney v. Holiday Companies, 3:07-cv-00147-RRB (D.Alaska Order of Apr. 23, 2008)

Ken Legacki of Anchorage represents the plaintiff.  Wendy Leukuma and William Evans of Dorsey & Whitney, also in Anchorage, represent the defendants.