Globaltranz Enterprises LLC v. Pinnacle Logistics Group LLC

Opinion

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

9 Globaltranz Enterprises LLC, No. CV-22-00545-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Pinnacle Logistics Group LLC, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint request for a protective order seeking 16 to mark as confidential items, “that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil 17 Procedure 26(c).” (Doc. 22-1 at 2). It also seeks to mark as “attorney’s eyes only” items, 18 “the disclosure of which to another Party or non-Party would create a substantial risk of 19 serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means.” (Id.). 20 The Court finds that the parties have failed to show cause for the need for a 21 protective order in this case. Specifically, global protective orders are not appropriate. See 22 AGA Shareholders, LLC v. CSK Auto, Inc., 2007 WL 4225450, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 23 2007). Rule 26(c) requires a party seeking a protective order to show good cause for 24 issuance of such an order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). “For good cause to exist under Rule 25 26(c), ‘the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or 26 harm will result if no protective order is granted.’” AGA Shareholders, 2007 WL 27 4225450, at *1 (emphasis added) (quoting Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 28 (9th Cir. 2002)). The party seeking protection “must make a ‘particularized showing of 1 || good cause with respect to [each] individual document.’ Jd. (emphasis added) (quoting 2|| San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999)). 3 Thus, “[t]he burden is on the party requesting a protective order to demonstrate that 4|| (1) the material in question is a trade secret or other confidential information within the 5|| 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 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Deford v. 7|| Schmid Prods. Co., 120 F.R.D. 648, 653 (D. Md. 1987)). 8 Here, the parties’ stipulation states: “The Parties have conferred and have agreed to 9|| the terms of a Protective Order that the Parties believe will accomplish their goal of 10 || maintain the confidentiality of certain confidential, proprietary, and/or sensitive or personal 11 || information.” (Doc. 22 at 2). This argument does not establish good cause. Accordingly, || the request for a protective order is denied. However, the parties may redact any 13} information listed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 without further Court order and may also redact any non-relevant sensitive or personal information without further Court 15 || order. 16 Based on the foregoing, 17 IT IS ORDERED that the joint motion for entry of a protective order (Doc. 22) is 18 || denied without prejudice. 19 Dated this 26th day of April, 2022. 20 21 a 22 3 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28

_2-