Wheeler v. United Financial Casualty Company

Filing 24

ORDER signed by District Judge Stanley A Bastian on 2/23/17 ORDERING that the Parties' Stipulated Protective Order Regarding Production and Dissemination of Trade Secret, Confidential and Proprietary Information, ECF No. 21 , is DENIED. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8 BETH WHEELER,
9
10

NO. 2:16-cv-01875-SB

Plaintiff,
v.

11 UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY

ORDER DENYING
STIPULATED MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER

12 COMPANY, individually and d/b/a
13 Progressive, Progressive Insurance and
14 Progressive.com; DOES 1 to 15,
15

Defendants.

16
17

Before the Court is parties’ Stipulated Protective Order Regarding

18 Production and Dissemination of Trade Secret, Confidential and Proprietary
19 Information, ECF No. 21. The parties seek a protective order to protect
20 confidential, proprietary, and private information. This motion was heard without
21 oral argument.
22

The product of pretrial discovery is presumptively public, though Federal

23 Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(c) permits a district court to override this
24 presumption upon a showing of “good cause.” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v.
25 U.S. District Court—Northern Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir.
26 1999). Rule 26(c) provides that a “court may, for good cause, issue an order to
27 protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
28 burden or expense.” Prior to the grant of a protective order, the moving party must
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER + 1

1 certify it has “conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an
2 effort to resolve the dispute without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (emphasis
3 added).
Where the parties agree, as here, that certain information should remain

4

5 confidential, it may be prudent to enter into an agreement setting forth in writing
6 what information shall remain private. It is unnecessary, however, for such an
7 agreement to have this Court’s imprimatur. A court issued protective order is less
8 necessary since Rule 5(d) was amended to only require filing discovery material
9 actually used in support of an action. Because not all discovery material need be
10 filed, most discovery material is not readily accessible to the public. Therefore, the
11 primary concern regarding confidential materials is how the parties themselves
12 handle such material. This Court will not hesitate to issue a protective order when
13 it is necessary; however, the moving party or parties must demonstrate good cause
14 exists and must bear the “burden of showing specific prejudice or harm” that will
15 result if no protective order is granted. Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,
16 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). In other words, the moving party must demonstrate why
17 the parties cannot resolve the issue without court action—a standard that will
18 generally not be met when the parties agree to the terms of a proposed protective
19 order.
20

The motion at hand fails to demonstrate specific harm or prejudice that will

21 result if no protective order is granted. Additionally, the parties appear to be in
22 agreement on what material is appropriate for discovery and how it should be
23 handled. Accordingly, the Court denies the stipulated motion for protective order.
24

The Court encourages the parties to continue cooperating with respect to the

25 handling of potentially sensitive discovery material. The parties may, upon proper
26 showing tied to specific discovery material, move the Court to seal certain
27 discovery filings.
28 //
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER + 2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

2

The Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order Regarding Production and

3 Dissemination of Trade Secret, Confidential and Proprietary Information, ECF
4 No. 21, is DENIED.
5

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to

6 file this Order and provide copies to counsel.
7

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2017.

8
9
10

_______________________________
Stanley A. Bastian
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER + 3