Ruiz v. Experian Information Solutions Incorporated

Filing 28

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the stipulation for a protective order (Doc. 27 ) is denied, without prejudice. [See attached Order for complete details.] Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 4/8/2016. (KAL)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Alejandra Ruiz, No. CV-15-01996-PHX-JAT Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Experian Information Solutions Incorporated, 13 Defendant. 14 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation for a protective order (Doc. 15 16 27). The parties seek a protective order for anything that contains “confidential 17 commercial or financial information or trade secret information to which they in good 18 faith believe access should be limited to litigation counsel….” Doc. 27-1 at 3. 19 Global protective orders are not appropriate. See AGA Shareholders, LLC v. CSK 20 Auto, Inc., 2007 WL 4225450, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2007). Rule 26(c) requires a party 21 seeking a protective order to show good cause for issuance of such an order. Fed. R. Civ. 22 P. 26(c)(1). “For good cause to exist under Rule 26(c), ‘the party seeking protection bears 23 the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is 24 granted.’” AGA Shareholders, 2007 WL 4225450, at *1 (emphasis added) (quoting 25 Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002)). The party seeking 26 protection “must make a ‘particularized showing of good cause with respect to [each] 27 individual document.’” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. 28 U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999)). 1 Thus, “[t]he burden is on the party to requesting a protective order to demonstrate 2 that (1) the material in question is a trade secret or other confidential information within 3 the scope of Rule 26(c), and (2) disclosure would cause an identifiable, significant harm.” 4 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 5 Deford v. Schmid Prods. Co., 120 F.R.D. 648, 653 (D. Md. 1987)). 6 7 8 9 10 In this case, the parties have failed to make a particularized showing justifying a protective order. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the stipulation for a protective order (Doc. 27) is denied, without prejudice. Dated this 8th day of April, 2016. 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?