Terrazas v. Wells Fargo Bank NA

Filing 17

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the joint motion for protective order (Docs. 15 and 16 ) is denied, without prejudice [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 1/30/18. (MAW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Misha Patel Terrazas,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-04275-PHX-JAT

Wells Fargo Bank NA,

13

Defendant.

14
Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for a protective order (Doc.

15
16

15).

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.

20

P. 26(c)(1). “For good cause to exist under Rule 26(c), ‘the party seeking protection bears

21

the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is

22

granted.’” AGA Shareholders, 2007 WL 4225450, at *1 (emphasis added) (quoting

23

Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002)). The party seeking

24

protection “must make a ‘particularized showing of good cause with respect to [each]

25

individual document.’” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v.

26

U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999)).

27

Thus, “[t]he burden is on the party to requesting a protective order to demonstrate

28

that (1) the material in question is a trade secret or other confidential information within

1

the scope of Rule 26(c), and (2) disclosure would cause an identifiable, significant harm.”

2

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting

3

Deford v. Schmid Prods. Co., 120 F.R.D. 648, 653 (D. Md. 1987)).

4

In this case, the parties seek to mark information as “confidential” that the parties

5

deem to be, “confidential, proprietary, and/or commercially sensitive information.”

6

(Doc. 16-1 at 2). This description is far too generalized to qualify for protection under

7

Rule 26. Moreover, the parties state, “The parties agree that, where it would not be cost

8

effective to review every document for confidentiality issues, the parties may designate

9

an entire group of documents as confidential, ….” (Doc. 16-1 at 3). This practice is

10

inconsistent with the law in this circuit which requires designations to be on a document

11

by document (or line by line) basis. Therefore, the joint motion for protective order, as

12

submitted, will be denied.

13
14
15

IT IS ORDERED that the joint motion for protective order (Docs. 15 and 16) is
denied, without prejudice.
Dated this 30th day of January, 2018.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-