Earth Science Laboratories, Inc. v. Alpine Techinical Services, LLC

W.D. Arkansas

Earth Science Laboratories, Inc. v. Alpine Techinical Services, LLC

DecidedApril 19, 2022

Docket5:22-cv-05003

StatusUnknown

This text of Earth Science Laboratories, Inc. v. Alpine Techinical Services, LLC (Earth Science Laboratories, Inc. v. Alpine Techinical Services, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Earth Science Laboratories, Inc. v. Alpine Techinical Services, LLC, (W.D. Ark. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

EARTH SCIENCE LABORATORIES, INC. PLAINTIFF

v. No. 5:22-CV-05003

ALPINE TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC DEFENDANT

ORDER Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 16) for protective order and proposed protective order (Doc. 16-2). The motion is unopposed. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides that “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Here, the proposed protective order does not define “Confidential Information” and would allow any party unfettered discretion to designate any information as confidential. There may be good cause for blanket protective orders in some complex cases, see, e.g., United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford Ins. Co., 905 F.2d 1424, 1427–28 (10th Cir. 1990) (setting out some benefits of blanket protective orders), but there is no reason to believe this is a complex case. Further, without any information as to what information the parties seek to protect, the Court cannot find good cause for entry of a protective order. The motion will be denied without prejudice to refiling a revised proposed protective order that appropriately defines “Confidential Information.” IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for a protective order (Doc. 16) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of April, 2022. /s/P. K. Holmes, P.K. HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

EARTH SCIENCE LABORATORIES, INC. PLAINTIFF

v. No. 5:22-CV-05003

ALPINE TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC DEFENDANT

ORDER Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 16) for protective order and proposed protective order (Doc. 16-2). The motion is unopposed. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides that “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Here, the proposed protective order does not define “Confidential Information” and would allow any party unfettered discretion to designate any information as confidential. There may be good cause for blanket protective orders in some complex cases, see, e.g., United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford Ins. Co., 905 F.2d 1424, 1427–28 (10th Cir. 1990) (setting out some benefits of blanket protective orders), but there is no reason to believe this is a complex case. Further, without any information as to what information the parties seek to protect, the Court cannot find good cause for entry of a protective order. The motion will be denied without prejudice to refiling a revised proposed protective order that appropriately defines “Confidential Information.” IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for a protective order (Doc. 16) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of April, 2022. /s/P. K. Holmes, P.K. HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Earth Science Laboratories, Inc. v. Alpine Techinical Services, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/earth-science-laboratories-inc-v-alpine-techinical-services-llc-arwd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack