Vroom v. Johnson

Filing 47

ORDER denying 46 Joint Motion for Protective Order. See attached Order. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 8/10/2015.(TLB)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Patricia M. Vroom,

No. CV-14-02463-PHX-JAT
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Jeh Johnson,

13

Defendant.

14
15

The parties have jointly moved for a protective order claiming that such an order is

16

necessary in this case because documents may be produced which are “attorney work

17

product,” “attorney client communications,” “protected by the deliberative process

18

privilege,” or “Plaintiff’s medical records.” Doc. 46 at 2. However, in their proposed

19

protective order, it says that parties may designate as confidential anything counsel

20

determines is “necessary to protect the interests of the client.” Doc. 46-1 at 1.

21

Generally, global protective orders are not appropriate. See AGA Shareholders,

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

In their motion, the parties attempted to make a particularized showing that some

4

of the documents to be disclosed are privileged.

5

protective order submitted to the Court, the parties included unacceptable, generalized

6

language allowing counsel to mark virtually anything confidential without counsel first

7

making a good faith determination that the documents are in fact privileged. As a result,

8
9
10

However, in the actual proposed

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for a protective order (Doc. 46) is denied
without prejudice.
Dated this 10th day of August, 2015.

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

-2-