Filed: Jan. 29, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 29, 2015
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG, District Judge. On December 19, 2014, the Court entered the following Order: The parties' have filed a stipulation for a protective order. In the stipulation, the parties make no showing that a protective order is necessary in this case. See Doc. 17. Further, 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
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG, District Judge. On December 19, 2014, the Court entered the following Order: The parties' have filed a stipulation for a protective order. In the stipulation, the parties make no showing that a protective order is necessary in this case. See Doc. 17. Further, 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 ..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. TEILBORG, District Judge.
On December 19, 2014, the Court entered the following Order:
The parties' have filed a stipulation for a protective order. In the stipulation, the parties make no showing that a protective order is necessary in this case. See Doc. 17.
Further, 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)).
As a result of the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that the parties' stipulation for a protective order
(Doc. 17) is denied without prejudice.
Doc. 18.
Thereafter, the parties submitted a second stipulation for the entry of a protective order. Doc. 19. In this second stipulation, the parties listed two documents that would be subject to the protective order, and articulated a basis for needing a protective order for these two documents. Id. at 1-2. However, the parties attached a proposed form of protective order that far exceeds the scope of their identified basis for needing a protective order. See 19-1 at 1-11.
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that the parties' second stipulation for entry of a protective order (Doc. 19) is denied without prejudice to the parties' filing a third stipulation for entry of a protective order in which the proposed form of order is consistent with the parties' articulated basis for requiring a protective order.
