Beasley v. TeleComp Holdings, Inc.

Filing 30

OPINION AND ORDER granting 29 Motion for Protective Order. The Court will enter a revised protective order. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes III on August 2, 2022. (mjm)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION GIAKOB BEASLEY v. PLAINTIFF No. 2:22-CV-02047 TELECOMP HOLDINGS, INC. DEFENDANT OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion (Doc. 29) for protective order and proposed protective order (Doc. 29-1). The parties seek protection of confidential, sensitive, or proprietary business information. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will GRANT the motion and enter a revised protective order. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G) provides that “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” by “requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specific way.” “The burden is therefore upon the movant to show the necessity of its issuance, which contemplates ‘a particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.’” Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Mfg. Co., 481 F.2d 1204, 1212 (8th Cir. 1973) (citing Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2035 at 264-65). The parties have shown good cause for the entry of a protective order as to documents containing confidential and/or proprietary information. Trade secrets and other confidential commercial information fall squarely within the ambit of Rule 26(c). “Where discovery of confidential commercial information is involved, the court must ‘balance the risk of disclosure to competitors against the risk that a protective order will impair prosecution or defense of the 1 claims.’” Bussing v. COR Clearing, LLC, No. 12CV238, 2015 WL 4077993, at *2 (D. Neb. July 6, 2015) (quoting Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech (SSPF) Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552, 555 (C.D. Cal. 2007)). Here, entry of a protective order will impair neither prosecution nor the defense of the claims because the parties are in agreement as to the proposed protective order. The Court finds that good cause has been shown for the entry of a protective order regarding documents containing trade secrets or other confidential commercial information. The Court will separately enter a revised protective order which complies with the Court’s standard procedure for filing documents under seal, permits retention of documents when required by law, regulation, court order, or other professional obligation, clarifies that the use of confidential information at trial or hearing is outside the scope of the protective order, and clarifies that modification of the protective order is not allowed except by order of the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of August, 2022. /s/P. K. Holmes, III P.K. HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 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?