State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Amazon.com 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)

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

Amazon.com 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 Amazon.com, 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-