Applied Underwriters v. A & I Steel Fabricators, Inc. et al

Filing 70

ORDER denying 60 Motion for Protective Order. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (JDR)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC., a Nebraska corporation, and APPLIED UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) A&I STEEL FABRICATORS, INC., ) a California corporation, and ) ABLE IRON WORKS, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________) 8:13CV25 ORDER This matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiffs Applied Underwriters, Inc. (“Applied”) and Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc. (AUCRA) for a protective order (Filing No. 60). Plaintiffs seek to limit circulation of certain discovery responses to viewing by defendants and their representatives, experts, and attorneys. In addition, plaintiffs seek to limit use of the responses to the present case. “Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) requires that ‘good cause’ be shown for a protective order to be issued. 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) (quoting Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2035 at 264-65). Though the requested protective order may be routine, given defendants’ objections, the Court is obligated to test plaintiffs’ showing of good cause against the standards laid out by the Eighth Circuit. In arguing simply that the requested discovery “contains financial information and business plans that have limited public access,” plaintiffs have failed to make the particularized demonstration of any fact which the Court could assess or which the defendants could dispute. Therefore, no protective order is appropriate at this time. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order (Filing No. 60) is denied. DATED this 21st day of February, 2014. BY THE COURT: /s/ Lyle E. Strom ____________________________ LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge United States District Court -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?