Airbus DS Optronics GmbH v. Nivisys LLC et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying without prejudice 19 Parties' second Stipulation for entry of a protective order. The parties' may file a third stipulation in which the proposed form of order is consistent with the parties' articulated basis for requiring a protective order. (See attached Order). Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 1/29/2015. (TLB)

WO
1
2
3
4
5
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

7
8
9

Airbus DS Optronics GmbH, a foreign
company,

10
11
12
13
14

CV-14-2399-PHX-JAT
ORDER

Plaintiff,
vs.
Nivisys, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; XYZ Corporations, ABC
partnerships, and John and Jane Does 1-10,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

On December 19, 2014, the Court entered the following Order:
The parties’ have filed a stipulation for a protective order. In the
stipulation, the parties make no showing that a protective order is necessary
in this case. See Doc. 17.
Further, Global protective orders are not appropriate. See AGA
Shareholders, LLC v. CSK Auto, Inc., 2007 WL 4225450, at *1 (D. Ariz.
Nov. 28, 2007). Rule 26(c) requires a party seeking a protective order to
show good cause for issuance of such an order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).
“For good cause to exist under Rule 26(c), ‘the party seeking protection
bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no
protective order is granted.’” AGA Shareholders, 2007 WL 4225450, at *1
(emphasis added) (quoting Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11
(9th Cir. 2002)). The party seeking protection “must make a ‘particularized
showing of good cause with respect to [each] individual document.’” Id.
(emphasis added) (quoting San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,
187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999)).
As a result of the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation for a protective order
(Doc. 17) is denied without prejudice.
1
2

Doc. 18.

3

Thereafter, the parties submitted a second stipulation for the entry of a protective

4

order. Doc. 19. In this second stipulation, the parties listed two documents that would be

5

subject to the protective order, and articulated a basis for needing a protective order for

6
7

these two documents. Id. at 1-2. However, the parties attached a proposed form of

8

protective order that far exceeds the scope of their identified basis for needing a protective

9

order. See 19-1 at 1-11.

10

Based on the foregoing,

11
12

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ second stipulation for entry of a protective

13

order (Doc. 19) is denied without prejudice to the parties’ filing a third stipulation for

14

entry of a protective order in which the proposed form of order is consistent with the

15

parties’ articulated basis for requiring a protective order.

16
17

Dated this 29th day of January, 2015.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

-2-