Williams et al v. Zimmer Holdings Incorporated

Filing 36

ORDER that the motion for protective order (Doc. 34 ) is denied, without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that, if the parties elect to file a timely, new motion for protective order, they must submit a proposed form of order to chambers as required by the administrative policies and procedures manual. See order for complete details. Signed by Senior Judge James A. Teilborg on 1/11/16. (NKS)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Jane F. Williams, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

Zimmer Holdings Incorporated,

13

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-14-02157-PHX-JAT

Defendant.

14
Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for a protective order. (Doc.

15
16

34).

As a general matter, global protective orders are not appropriate. See AGA

17

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

18

Rule 26(c) requires a party seeking a protective order to show good cause for issuance of

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

In this case, Defendant has attempted to make some particularized showing,

4

stating that Plaintiff seeks: “confidential and trade secret documents and information

5

generally not available in the open market and not placed into the public domain by

6

Zimmer. These documents and information include, for example, product design

7

configurations, product design drawings, product test reports, marketing information,

8

research and development information, and other non-public and proprietary information

9

relating to the Device.” Doc. 34 at 2 (emphasis added). However, the protective order

10

sought by the parties is not limited to this information.

11

information listed, Defendant states that “Zimmer” does not make the information

12

available publically, not that the information is not publically available or that Defendant

13

would be prejudiced if it were publically available.

14

Further, even as to the

Additionally, Defendant states that the above list is “among” the items sought by

15

Plaintiff.

16

Plaintiff’s “confidential and private” medical, employment and financial information.

17

The parties have made no showing that this information is actually kept confidential and

18

the Court finds it difficult to imagine that Plaintiff’s employment history is actually

19

confidential.

20

recounted in the complaint in this case.

Id.

Further, the parties state that they also intend to mark confidential

Further, significant amounts of Plaintiff’s medical history are already

21

Thus, based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the parties have failed to make a

22

particularized showing of good cause with respect to each document. As a result the

23

request for a protective order will be denied. Accordingly,

24

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for protective order (Doc. 34) is denied,

25

without prejudice.

26

///

27

///

28

///

-2-

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if the parties elect to file a timely, new

2

motion for protective order, they must submit a proposed form of order to chambers as

3

required by the administrative policies and procedures manual.

4

Dated this 11th day of January, 2016.

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-