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)

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-