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)

Download PDF
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-

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?