Airbus DS Optronics GmbH v. Nivisys LLC et al
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)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Airbus DS Optronics GmbH, a foreign
Nivisys, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; XYZ Corporations, ABC
partnerships, and John and Jane Does 1-10,
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.
Thereafter, the parties submitted a second stipulation for the entry of a protective
order. Doc. 19. In this second stipulation, the parties listed two documents that would be
subject to the protective order, and articulated a basis for needing a protective order for
these two documents. Id. at 1-2. However, the parties attached a proposed form of
protective order that far exceeds the scope of their identified basis for needing a protective
order. See 19-1 at 1-11.
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ second stipulation for entry of a protective
order (Doc. 19) is denied without prejudice to the parties’ filing a third stipulation for
entry of a protective order in which the proposed form of order is consistent with the
parties’ articulated basis for requiring a protective order.
Dated this 29th day of January, 2015.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?