State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Incorporated et al

Filing 88

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the stipulation for a protective order (Doc. 87 ) is denied, without prejudice [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 4/10/18. (MAW)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Plaintiff, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-17-01994-PHX-JAT Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is a stipulated-to protective order submitted by Plaintiff 16 and one Defendant. The stipulation offers the following justification: “Good cause exists 17 for entry of the Protective Order. In order to comply with their respective disclosure 18 obligations, the parties must disclose information that is protected, private, and/or 19 confidential. Some of this information relates to Defendant, Inc.’s 20 confidential and proprietary business information.” (Doc. 87 at 2). The actual proposed 21 order lists certain categories of documents that will be protected and also states 22 “‘Confidential Information’ means any information that is private, confidential, or 23 proprietary, including the following representative but non-exclusive examples: ….” 24 (Doc. 87-1 at 3). 25 Global protective orders are not appropriate. See AGA Shareholders, LLC v. CSK 26 Auto, Inc., 2007 WL 4225450, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2007). Rule 26(c) requires a party 27 seeking a protective order to show good cause for issuance of such an order. Fed. R. Civ. 28 P. 26(c)(1). “For good cause to exist under Rule 26(c), ‘the party seeking protection bears 1 the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is 2 granted.’” AGA Shareholders, 2007 WL 4225450, at *1 (emphasis added) (quoting 3 Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002)). The party seeking 4 protection “must make a ‘particularized showing of good cause with respect to [each] 5 individual document.’” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. 6 U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999)). 7 Thus, “[t]he burden is on the party to requesting a protective order to demonstrate 8 that (1) the material in question is a trade secret or other confidential information within 9 the scope of Rule 26(c), and (2) disclosure would cause an identifiable, significant harm.” 10 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 11 Deford v. Schmid Prods. Co., 120 F.R.D. 648, 653 (D. Md. 1987)). 12 Here, the language of the parties’ proposed protective order is too generalized to 13 meet the requirements of Rule 26. For example, it defines confidential information as 14 information that is confidential. It offers no explanation of what information would be 15 included or why it would need to be protected. Accordingly, the stipulation will be 16 denied. Therefore, 17 18 19 IT IS ORDERED that the stipulation for a protective order (Doc. 87) is denied, without prejudice. Dated this 10th day of April, 2018. 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?