Ladner v. RentGrow Incorporated

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided October 19, 2023·No. 2:23-cv-00867·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4

5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Victoria Nicole Ladner, Case No. CV 23-867-PHX-JAT 10 Plaintiff, PROTECTIVE ORDER 11 v. 12 RentGrow, Inc. and TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc., 13 Defendants. 14 15 The Parties have renewed their Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective 16 Order. (Doc. 33). This second request provides more specificity and justification than the 17 parties’ previously rejected request. (Docs. 19, 21). However, the renewed request still 18 represents an unrealistic view of a public court. 19 To summarize, the following are the categories of documents sought to be protected 20 in the parties’ motion: 21 RentGrow’s policies and procedures relating to compliance with § 1681e(b) and for 22 ensuring accurate consumer reports. (Doc. 33 at 4). 23 RentGrow’s employee training materials and training materials provided to: 24 vendors, agents, third parties, and independent contractors. (Id.). 25 RentGrow’s procedures used in this particular case. (Id.).1 26

27 1 These 3 categories were summarized as RentGrow’s procedures for merging, reviewing, assembling consumer information, as well as the processes for reviewing, processing, 28 responding to, and resolving consumer disputes. (Doc. 33 at 4-5). 1 RentGrow’s agreements with consumer reporting agencies such as TransUnion 2 Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. (Id. at 5). 3 Information on RentGrow’s “database” and “system.” (Id. at 6) 4 Information RentGrow used in Plaintiff’s particular case, including: documents 5 concerning any reinvestigation conducted concerning any information about Plaintiff, any 6 responses, notes, screens, logs, internal memoranda, correspondence, or supporting 7 documentation. (Id.). 8 And, Plaintiff’s “personal” and “private” information. (Id.). 9 The proposed protective order seeks to protect all of the above information both 10 during discovery and at trial. (Doc. 33-2 at 2). 11 This action is a basic Fair Credit Reporting Act case stemming from some 12 information RentGrow reported about Plaintiff on a tenant screening report. (Doc. 1 at 2). 13 In short summary, Plaintiff claims RentGrow violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting 14 Act by giving Plaintiff’s potential landlord a report which “inaccurately stated that Plaintiff 15 had a civil judgment for eviction against her when the judgment had been expressly 16 vacated, dismissed and the record sealed and prohibited from distribution to third parties 17 or the public pursuant to state law designed to protect parties from just such disclosures.” 18 (Id.) 19 The protective order proposed by the parties seeks to protect every aspect of 20 RentGrow’s operations, both generally and specifically as to the action taken with respect 21 to this particular Plaintiff. It also seeks to protect all of RentGrow’s internal documents 22 and external documents with business partners, service providers and clients. Further it 23 seeks to protect Plaintiff’s personal and private information, which depending on 24 someone’s perspective could be everything on a credit report. 2 Thus, as far as the Court 25 can discern, the parties seek to mark as confidential every single item of discovery in this 26 case, including deposition and trial testimony.

27 2 Notwithstanding what is in the parties’ motion itself, the proposed protective order submitted for the Court’s signature does not protect any of Plaintiff’s information. (Doc. 28 33-2 at 4). 1 Finally, the parties stipulate that before any such information is presented to the 2 Court, either by motion or at trial, the party seeking to use the material must file a motion 3 to seal. (Doc. 33-2 at 6). 4 Thus, at bottom, the foregoing shows the parties seemingly seek to conduct this 5 entire case under seal. As mentioned above, this is a routine Fair Credit Reporting Act 6 case. The concerns raised by the parties would apply equally to nearly every case, namely: 7 a business has information or processes it believes its competitors would value and an 8 individual has personal information they would prefer not be made public. But conducting 9 every case with these concerns under seal runs afoul of the basic concept of a public court 10 system. 11 “It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and 12 documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commnc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Following the Supreme Court’s lead, “we start with a strong presumption in favor 13 of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.2003). The presumption of access is “based on the need for 14 federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have 15 confidence in the administration of justice.” United States v. Amodeo (Amodeo II ), 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir.1995); see also Valley Broad. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court— 16 D. Nev., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir.1986) (explaining that the presumption of public access “promot[es] the public’s understanding of the judicial process and 17 of significant public events”).

18 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). 19 The Court will, as discussed further below, grant the parties a protective order governing 20 future discovery in this case. However, the parties should not assume that summary judgment 21 filings (if any) will be under seal, nor will the trial of this matter be under seal. The parties may 22 redact, without further Court order, any information permitted to be redacted by Federal Rule of 23 Civil Procedure 5.2. Otherwise, they should proceed on the assumption the filings in this case will 24 be public. 25 As this Court’s prior Order on the parties’ request for a protective order discussed, global 26 protective orders are not permissible, but in some circumstances, umbrella protective orders– 27 protecting specifically identified categories of documents–are permissible. (See Doc. 21). As the foregoing recounts, the parties have identified “categories” of documents, but have either so 28 1 vaguely identified them (“personal” and “private” information), or so broadly identified them (the 2 “database” and the “system”) that they likely encompass the entire case.3 Thus, the Court will limit 3 the protective order as specified below to certain categories of documents. 4 The Court finds that the Parties have shown good cause for maintaining the 5 confidential nature of certain information as defined in the Protective Order. Accordingly, 6 IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion for a protective order (Doc. 33) is granted 7 to the limited extent specified herein. Therefore, 8 IT IS FURHTER ORDERED: 9 This protective order (the “Protective Order”) is entered in connection with the future 10 production by the Parties of documents and other information as defined below. This 11 protective order is not retroactive as to any documents or information already produced. 12 The following Definitions apply in this Order: 13 A.

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

Ladner v. RentGrow Incorporated, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Ladner v. RentGrow Incorporated (Ladner v. RentGrow Incorporated) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related