Berneking v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: April 27, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-04788
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Lisa Berneking, No. CV-19-04788-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, 13 Defendant. 14 15 In this case, the parties seek a protective order governing the exchange of: 16 “documents and testimony that may contain confidential information, including proprietary 17 information, and other items.” (Doc. 43-1 at 1). The parties have failed to show good 18 cause for the need for a protective order in this case. 19 Specifically, global protective orders are not appropriate. See AGA Shareholders, 20 LLC v. CSK Auto, Inc., 2007 WL 4225450, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2007). Rule 26(c) 21 requires a party seeking a protective order to show good cause for issuance of such an 22 order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). “For good cause to exist under Rule 26(c), ‘the party seeking 23 protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no 24 protective order is granted.’” AGA Shareholders, 2007 WL 4225450, at *1 (emphasis 25 added) (quoting Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002)). The party 26 seeking protection “must make a ‘particularized showing of good cause with respect 27 to [each] individual document.’” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting San Jose Mercury News, 28 Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999)). 1 Thus, “[t]he burden is on the party requesting a protective order to demonstrate that (1) the material in question is a trade secret or other confidential information within the 3|| 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 (th Cir. 2003) (quoting Deford v. 5 || Schmid Prods. Co., 120 F.R.D. 648, 653 (D. Md. 1987)). 6 Here, the parties fail to explain what confidential or proprietary information will be exchanged in this case or why it requires protection under Rule 26. Further, “other items” 8 || is far to generic to be entitled to protection under Rule 26. Thus, based on the foregoing, 9 IT IS ORDERED that the joint motion for a protective order (Doc. 43) is denied, || without prejudice. 11 Dated this 27th day of April, 2020. 12 13 2 14 James A. Teilborg I5 Senior United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-