Barten v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 296

ORDER denying 251 Motion for Protective Order; denying 252 Motion for Leave to File exhibits under seal.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Leslie A Bowman on 10/10/2013.(JKM)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Bryan Barten, a married man, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ) State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance) Company, a foreign corporation doing) ) business in Arizona, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________ ) No. CIV 12-399-TUC-CKJ (LAB) ORDER 16 17 18 19 20 Pending before the court is the defendant’s motion for a protective order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), filed on July 5, 2013. (Doc. 251) Also pending is a motion for leave to file exhibits under seal in support of the motion for a protective order. (Doc. 252) 21 The plaintiff in this action, Bryan Barten, was covered by a personal injury protection 22 (PIP) policy issued by the defendant, State Farm, when he was involved in an automobile 23 accident and rendered a quadriplegic. Barten claims State Farm breached this policy by 24 failing to pay benefits due and failing to inform him of the extent of his benefits. 25 State Farm moves pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) “for entry of a protective order 26 precluding discovery of information and documents pertaining to the Michigan Auto 27 Advancing Claims Excellence (“ACE”) program . . . beyond the documents and information 28 State Farm has already produced.” (Doc. 251, p. 1) In support of its motion, it moves for 1 permission to file under seal for this court’s consideration some of these ACE documents. 2 (Doc. 252) 3 The case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Bowman for all pretrial matters 4 pursuant to the local Rules of Practice. LRCiv 72.2. The court finds this motion suitable for 5 decision without oral argument. 6 7 Discussion 8 Pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1)(A), “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to 9 protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or 10 expense . . . forbidding the disclosure or discovery. . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 “For good cause to exist, the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing 12 specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Phillips ex rel. 13 Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-1211 (9th Cir. 2002). “If a 14 court finds particularized harm will result from disclosure of information to the public, then 15 it balances the public and private interests to decide whether a protective order is necessary.” 16 Id. at 1211. The court has broad discretion “to decide when a protective order is appropriate 17 and what degree of protection is required.” Id. In the pending motion, State Farm moves for 18 a protective order precluding additional disclosure of its ACE program. (Doc. 251) 19 ACE was an internal analysis of State Farm’s claims processing procedures, which 20 was conducted in the 1990s. (Doc. 251) State Farm moves for a protective order precluding 21 additional disclosure of the ACE program because the program was concluded long before 22 Barten’s claims were processed. Specifically, State Farm seeks protection from disclosure 23 required by Barten’s third request for admissions, sixth request for production of documents, 24 seventh request for production of documents, and fourth set of requests for admission. (Doc. 25 251, p. 5) 26 27 28 In the companion motion, State Farm moves for permission to file some of the ACE documents under seal so the court may examine them. (Doc. 252) -2- 1 2 Barten argues among other things that the motion for a protective order is untimely. (Doc. 263, p. 4) The court agrees. 3 “A motion for a protective order is timely if made prior to the date set for producing 4 the discovery.” Brittain v. Stroh Brewery Co., 136 F.R.D. 408, 413 (M.D.N.C. 1991); see 5 also 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2035, at 151. “In determining 6 timeliness, a court should consider all of the circumstances facing the parties.” Id. “Thus, 7 a failure to request a protective order prior to the time set for producing the discovery may 8 be excused for good cause, such as lack of sufficient time or opportunity to obtain the order.” 9 Id. 10 In this case, Barton’s discovery requests were filed in late February of 2013. (Doc. 11 263, p. 4) State Farm’s responses were due by the end of March of 2013. Id. State Farm’s 12 pending motion for a protective order was filed more than three months later on July 5, 2013. 13 It is untimely. 14 State Farm argues in its reply brief that its motion was somehow occasioned by this 15 court’s order filed on June 3, 2013. See (Doc. 229) The court does not see the connection. 16 In that order, the court granted in part Barten’s motion to compel a response to his 17 second request for production of documents. (Doc. 117) Specifically, the court ordered State 18 Farm to comply with Barten’s request for “[d]ocumentation of the programs since ACE in 19 which the principles of ACE are included.” (Doc. 229, p. 3) 20 There is nothing in that order that explains State Farm’s failure to timely file the 21 pending motion for a protective order. The order does not lift some sort of impediment to 22 timely filing. It does not provide State Farm with information without which the motion 23 could not be filed. 24 State Farm asserts that the parties may not agree on the scope of discovery 25 necessitated by the June 3, 2013 order. And while that does appear to be the case, this is a 26 separate issue from the one presented in State Farm’s pending motion. 27 State Farm has not shown good cause to excuse its late filing. Accordingly, 28 -3- 1 2 IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s motion for a protective order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), filed on July 5, 2013, is DENIED. (Doc. 251) 3 IT IS FURTHER ordered that the defendant’s motion for leave to file exhibits under 4 seal in support of the motion for a protective order, filed on July 5, 2013, is DENIED. (Doc. 5 252) 6 7 DATED this 10th day of October, 2013. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-

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?