Bottom Line Recoveries LLC v. Lockheed Martin Corporation

Filing 42

ORDER - The parties wishing to present their request for a protective order to the Court, ORDERED setting In-Court Hearing on the parties' request for a protective order for 8/28/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 503, 401 West Washington Street, Pho enix, AZ 85003 before Senior Judge James A Teilborg. Counsel for both parties shall appear in person; no telephonic appearances will be permitted. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall on or before 8/26/2014 jointly e-mail to the Court a brief, no t to exceed ten (10) pages that (1) describes the documents or groups in a way such that the Court can understnad why they deserve protection and (2) as to each document or group of documents, articulates the specific harm or prejudice that will result if a protective order is not granted. In addition, the parties may include legal argument as necessary. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 8/22/2014. (TLB)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Bottom Line Recoveries LLC,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-14-00443-PHX-JAT

Lockheed Martin Corporation,

13
14

Defendant.
I.

Background

15

The parties stipulated to and jointly moved the Court for entry of a protective

16

order governing the “handling of documents, testimony, deposition exhibits, discovery

17

responses,” and all other discovery materials in this case. (Doc. 40-1 at 1-2). The parties’

18

proposed protective order permitted a party disclosing materials to designate any

19

documents it believed to contain confidential information as confidential, which would

20

subject the receiving party to certain obligations to preserve that confidentiality. (Id. at 7).

21

The proposed order would also require any documents referencing confidential

22

information filed with the Court to be filed under seal. (Id.)

23

The Court denied the parties’ motion without prejudice, noting that the parties had

24

not cited any authority for the Court entering a global or prospective protective order.

25

(Doc. 41). The Court ordered that any future requests for a protective order pursuant to

26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 26(c) be presented to the Court using the

27

procedure required for discovery disputes as outlined in the Court’s Rule 16 scheduling

28

order. (Id.)

1

II.

Request for a Protective Order

2

The parties have notified the Court that they have narrowed the scope of their

3

proposed protective order, classified the subject documents into several groups, and now

4

re-request the Court issue a protective order.

5

A.

Legal Standard

6

The Court reminds the parties of the applicable legal standard for obtaining a

7

protective order. Global protective orders are not appropriate. See AGA Shareholders,

8

LLC v. CSK Auto, Inc., 2007 WL 4225450, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2007). Rule 26(c)

9

requires a party seeking a protective order to show good cause for issuance of such an

10

order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). “For good cause to exist under Rule 26(c), ‘the party

11

seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result

12

if no protective order is granted.’” AGA Shareholders, 2007 WL 4225450, at *1

13

(emphasis added) (quoting Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir.

14

2002)). The party seeking protection “must make a ‘particularized showing of good

15

cause with respect to [each] individual document.’” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting San

16

Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999)).

17

Thus, “[t]he burden is on the party to requesting a protective order to demonstrate

18

that (1) the material in question is a trade secret or other confidential information within

19

the scope of Rule 26(c), and (2) disclosure would cause an identifiable, significant harm.”

20

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting

21

Deford v. Schmid Prods. Co., 120 F.R.D. 648, 653 (D. Md. 1987)).

22

III.

23
24

Conclusion
The parties wishing to present their request for a protective order to the Court, the

Court rules as follows:

25

IT IS ORDERED setting a hearing on the parties’ request for a protective order

26

for August 28, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 503, Fifth Floor, Sandra Day O’Connor

27

U.S. Courthouse, 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona, 85003. Counsel for both

28

parties shall appear in person; no telephonic appearances will be permitted.

-2-

1
2
3
4
5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall on or before August 26, 2014
jointly e-mail to the Court a brief, not to exceed ten pages, that:
1) Describes the documents or groups in a way such that the Court can understand
why they deserve protection; and
2) As to each document or group of documents, articulates the specific harm or

6

prejudice that will result if a protective order is not granted.

7

In addition to these points, the parties may include legal argument as necessary.

8

Dated this 22nd day of August, 2014.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-