EXP Pharmaceutical Services Corporation v. BestIT.com Incorporated

Filing 30

ORDER that the stipulation for protective order (Doc. 28 ) is denied without prejudice. See order for details. Signed by Senior Judge James A. Teilborg on 12/14/15. (NKS)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 EXP PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES 9 CORP., a California company, plaintiff, 10 vs. Case No. CV 15-01197-PHX-JAT ORDER 11 BESTIT.COM, INC., an Arizona Company defendant. 12 13 14 The parties filed a stipulated protective order to: “prohibit[] the public release of 15 confidential, personal, private, financial and proprietary information of the parties 16 herein….” 17 Global protective orders are not appropriate. See AGA Shareholders, LLC v. CSK 18 Auto, Inc., 2007 WL 4225450, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2007). Rule 26(c) requires a party 19 seeking a protective order to show good cause for issuance of such an order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 26(c)(1). “For good cause to exist under Rule 26(c), ‘the party seeking protection bears the 21 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 22 v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002)). The party seeking protection “must 23 make a ‘particularized showing of good cause with respect to [each] individual -1- 1 document.’” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 2 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999)). Thus, “[t]he burden is on the party to requesting a protective order to demonstrate 3 that (1) the material in question is a trade secret or other confidential information within the 4 scope of Rule 26(c), and (2) disclosure would cause an identifiable, significant harm.” Foltz 5 v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Deford v. 6 Schmid Prods. Co., 120 F.R.D. 648, 653 (D. Md. 1987)). 7 Here, while the parties have offered categories of documents they intend to mark as confidential; they have failed to make a particularized showing as to what such documents 8 would be or why the documents would qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil 9 Procedure 26(c). Therefore, 10 IT IS ORDERED that the stipulation for protective order (Doc. 28) is denied 11 without prejudice. Dated this 14th day of December, 2015. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 -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?