Exp Pharm. Servs. Corp. v. Bestit.Com, Inc.

Full title: EXP PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES CORP., a California company, plaintiff, v…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Dec 14, 2015

Case No. CV 15-01197-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Dec. 14, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. CV 15-01197-PHX-JAT

12-14-2015

EXP PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES CORP., a California company, plaintiff, v. BESTIT.COM, INC., an Arizona Company defendant.

James A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge

ORDER

The parties filed a stipulated protective order to: "prohibit[] the public release of confidential, personal, private, financial and proprietary information of the parties herein...."

Global protective orders are not appropriate. See AGA Shareholders, LLC v. CSK Auto, Inc., 2007 WL 4225450, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2007). Rule 26(c) requires a party seeking a protective order to show good cause for issuance of such an order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). "For good cause to exist under Rule 26(c), 'the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.'" AGA Shareholders, 2007 WL 4225450, at *1 (emphasis added) (quoting Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002)). The party seeking protection "must make a 'particularized showing of good cause with respect to [each] individual document.'" Id. (emphasis added) (quoting San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999)).

Thus, "[t]he burden is on the party to requesting a protective order to demonstrate that (1) the material in question is a trade secret or other confidential information within the scope of Rule 26(c), and (2) disclosure would cause an identifiable, significant harm." Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Deford v. Schmid Prods. Co., 120 F.R.D. 648, 653 (D. Md. 1987)).

Here, while the parties have offered categories of documents they intend to mark as confidential; they have failed to make a particularized showing as to what such documents would be or why the documents would qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the stipulation for protective order (Doc. 28) is denied without prejudice.

Dated this 14th day of December, 2015.

/s/ _________

James A. Teilborg

Senior United States District Judge