Ramirez v. Trans Union, LLC

Filing 29

ORDER RE: JOINT STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE (Dkt. No. 28). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 7/25/2012. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

SERGIO L. RAMIREZ, on behalf of
himself and all others similar situated,

13
14

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 3:12-cv-00632 JSC
ORDER RE: JOINT STATEMENT OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE (Dkt. No. 28)

v.

15
16
17

TRANS UNION, LLC,
Defendant.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Statement Regarding Discovery Dispute
(Dkt. No. 28) which concerns entry of a protective order in this action. The Court finds that
the Motion is suitable for determination without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule
7–1(b). Having considered the papers submitted to the Court, the Court declines to enter the
protective order proposed by Defendant.
A party seeking to place documents under seal must meet the requirements of Civil
L.R. 79–5 and Ninth Circuit case law. Contratto v. Ethicon, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 304, 307 (N.D.
Cal. 2005). The Ninth Circuit holds that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) “the
party asserting good cause bears the burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect,
of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Foltz

1

v. State Farm Mut. Aut. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003). “[B]road allegations

2

of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning do not satisfy the Rule

3

26(c) test.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). The

4

court has broad discretion to “to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what

5

degree of protection is required.” Phillips v. Gen. Motors, 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir.

6

2002) (internal citations omitted).

7

Parties are encouraged to sign stipulated protective orders to facilitate the exchange of

8

materials in the discovery process; however, parties should be mindful of the “strong

9

presumption in favor of access to court records” and the requirement that a party establish

Northern District of California

good cause for maintaining a document’s confidentiality in any court proceeding. See

11
United States District Court

10

Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). To this end, the Model Stipulated

12

Protective Order approved by the Northern District states that if there is a dispute regarding a

13

document’s confidentiality, the burden is on the party asserting that a document is

14

confidential to file a motion with the court seeking to retain the document’s confidentiality.

15

Here, Defendant seeks entry of a protective order which would shift the burden to the

16

party challenging the confidentiality designation to file a motion with the Court. Although

17

the language of the protective order states that the burden of persuasion in any such motion

18

remains on the party asserting that the challenged materials are confidential, the protective

19

order clearly shifts the initial burden to challenge the designation to the party challenging the

20

designation. This is inconsistent with Ninth Circuit case law. Defendant has offered no basis

21

for shifting the burden other than that the Court adopted a similar stipulated protective order

22

in another unrelated action in the Northern District. The Court finds this rationale insufficient

23

and declines to shift the burden in this case.

24

Accordingly, the Court declines to enter the protective order proposed by Defendant;

25

however, the Court would entertain a motion for protective order based on the Northern

26

District of California Model Stipulated Protective Order.

27

This Order disposes of Docket No. 28.

28

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

1

Dated: July 25, 2012
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3