Jones-Rankins v. Cardinal Health Incorporated

Filing 51

ORDER - Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendant's motion for a protective order (doc. 44). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff's motion to compel (doc. 48). IT IS ORDERED that defendant produce all responsive documents within three (3) days of this order. (See document for full details). Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 9/15/11.(LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9
10
11
12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Weltha Jones-Rankins,
Plaintiff,
vs.

13
Cardinal Health, Inc.,
14
Defendant.
15

CV 10-1626-PHX-FJM
ORDER

16
17
18
19

The court has before it defendant's motion for a protective order (doc. 44), plaintiff's
motion

to

compel

(doc.

48),

and

defendant's

response

(doc.

50).

20

Plaintiff has requested production of "various documents" that defendants state

21

include proprietary business information, employee records, and records of internal

22

investigations. Mot. for Protective Order, at 2. Defendant's concern is that plaintiff, who is

23

unrepresented by counsel, will publish or otherwise use discovery materials for purposes

24

other than this litigation. Defendant prepared a "simple" protective order for plaintiff's

25

signature to protect all discovery material. Id. Plaintiff was notified the day before

26

defendant's deadline that defendant was ready to produce the documents, but would do so

27

only upon plaintiff's signing the protective order. Plaintiff refuses to sign, arguing that

28

defendant has not established good cause justifying the issuance of a protective order.

1

The Ninth Circuit recognizes a broad right of public access to judicial records and

2

documents. Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Absent a court

3

order, the "fruits of pretrial discovery" are "presumptively public." San Jose Mercury News,

4

Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). A court

5

may issue a protective order when good cause exists. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The party

6

seeking the order carries the burden "for each particular document it seeks to protect, of

7

showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted." Foltz

8

v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003). The good cause test

9

of Rule 26(c) is not satisfied by sweeping allegations of harm, but instead requires specific,

10

articulated examples. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir.

11

1992).

12

Defendant's generalized concern that plaintiff "may" attempt to publish or use the

13

"various documents" she requested inappropriately merely because she is appearing pro se

14

does not satisfy its burden to show good cause. Mot. for Protective Order, at 2. Defendant

15

has not shown specific examples that prejudice or harm will result from production for each

16

document it seeks to protect. Defendant's argument that plaintiff's "refusal to agree that she

17

will not use these documents for improper purposes demonstrates precisely why" the order

18

is needed is also unavailing. Id. Plaintiff has not indicated that she will use discovery

19

materials for improper purposes. She has refused to sign a stipulated protective order that

20

is unsupported by good cause. Defendant's motion is denied.

21

Plaintiff moves to compel the production of documents from defendant. Defendant

22

reiterates that it is willing to immediately produce the documents once a protective order is

23

in place. Defendant, however, has not yet shown good cause for a protective order. As

24

defendant presents no other reason for withholding the documents, and indeed avers that it

25

is not trying to delay the discovery process, plaintiff's motion is granted.

26

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendant's motion for a protective order

27

(doc. 44). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff's motion to compel (doc.

28
-2-

1

48). IT IS ORDERED that defendant produce all responsive documents within three (3)

2

days of this order.

3

DATED this 15th day of September, 2011.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-