Vroom v. Johnson

Full title: Patricia M. Vroom, Plaintiff, v. Jeh Johnson, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Aug 10, 2015

No. CV-14-02463-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Aug. 10, 2015)

Opinion

No. CV-14-02463-PHX-JAT

08-10-2015

Patricia M. Vroom, Plaintiff, v. Jeh Johnson, Defendant.

James A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge

ORDER

The parties have jointly moved for a protective order claiming that such an order is necessary in this case because documents may be produced which are "attorney work product," "attorney client communications," "protected by the deliberative process privilege," or "Plaintiff's medical records." Doc. 46 at 2. However, in their proposed protective order, it says that parties may designate as confidential anything counsel determines is "necessary to protect the interests of the client." Doc. 46-1 at 1.

Generally, 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)).

In their motion, the parties attempted to make a particularized showing that some of the documents to be disclosed are privileged. However, in the actual proposed protective order submitted to the Court, the parties included unacceptable, generalized language allowing counsel to mark virtually anything confidential without counsel first making a good faith determination that the documents are in fact privileged. As a result,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for a protective order (Doc. 46) is denied without prejudice.

Dated this 10th day of August, 2015.

/s/ _________

James A. Teilborg

Senior United States District Judge