BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Skunk Incorporated

D. Arizona

BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Skunk Incorporated

DecidedAugust 22, 2019

Docket2:18-cv-02332

StatusUnknown

This text of BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Skunk Incorporated (BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Skunk Incorporated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Skunk Incorporated, (D. Ariz. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP, No. CV-18-02332-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Skunk Incorporated, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the parties’ proposed “general” protective order, which 16 is stipulated-to except for one section. (Doc. 90). 17 Global protective orders are not appropriate. See AGA Shareholders, LLC v. CSK 18 Auto, Inc., 2007 WL 4225450, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2007). Rule 26(c) requires a party 19 seeking a protective order to show good cause for issuance of such an order. Fed. R. Civ. 20 P. 26(c)(1). “For good cause to exist under Rule 26(c), ‘the party seeking protection bears 21 the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is 22 granted.’” AGA Shareholders, 2007 WL 4225450, at *1 (emphasis added) (quoting 23 Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002)). The party seeking 24 protection “must make a ‘particularized showing of good cause with respect to [each] 25 individual document.’” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. 26 U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999)). 27 Thus, “[t]he burden is on the party requesting a protective order to demonstrate that 28 (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 2|| 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)). 4 Here, the basis offered for the stipulated-to portions of the protective order is too 5 || vague and generalized to justify the entry of a protective order. Further, as to the disputed 6 || portion of the protective order, the Court will not seal hearings or trial in this case. 7 Based on the foregoing, 8 IT IS ORDERED that the motion for protective order (Doc. 90) is denied, without prejudice. 10 Dated this 22nd day of August, 2019. 11 12 of 13 14 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP, No. CV-18-02332-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Skunk Incorporated, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the parties’ proposed “general” protective order, which 16 is stipulated-to except for one section. (Doc. 90). 17 Global protective orders are not appropriate. See AGA Shareholders, LLC v. CSK 18 Auto, Inc., 2007 WL 4225450, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2007). Rule 26(c) requires a party 19 seeking a protective order to show good cause for issuance of such an order. Fed. R. Civ. 20 P. 26(c)(1). “For good cause to exist under Rule 26(c), ‘the party seeking protection bears 21 the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is 22 granted.’” AGA Shareholders, 2007 WL 4225450, at *1 (emphasis added) (quoting 23 Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002)). The party seeking 24 protection “must make a ‘particularized showing of good cause with respect to [each] 25 individual document.’” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. 26 U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999)). 27 Thus, “[t]he burden is on the party requesting a protective order to demonstrate that 28 (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 2|| 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)). 4 Here, the basis offered for the stipulated-to portions of the protective order is too 5 || vague and generalized to justify the entry of a protective order. Further, as to the disputed 6 || portion of the protective order, the Court will not seal hearings or trial in this case. 7 Based on the foregoing, 8 IT IS ORDERED that the motion for protective order (Doc. 90) is denied, without prejudice. 10 Dated this 22nd day of August, 2019. 11 12 of 13 14 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Debbie Foltz, Consumer Action United Policyholders Texas Watch, Intervenors, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, April J. Ho Jim Mathis Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors, and Consumer Action United Policy-Holders Texas Watch, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and Steven Becker

331 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Deford v. Schmid Products Co.

120 F.R.D. 648 (D. Maryland, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Skunk Incorporated, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bbk-tobacco-foods-llp-v-skunk-incorporated-azd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack