McCalla v. ACE American Insurance Company

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Ta'Laura McCalla, No. CV-20-01561-PHX-JAT 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. ACE American Insurance Company, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation for a protective order. (Doc. 20).

16 The parties seek to mark confidential “items that one or more parties, claim to contain proprietary and/or confidential information of the parties and/or third parties.” (Doc. 20-1 at 1).

19 Global protective orders are not appropriate. See AGA Shareholders, LLC v. CSK Auto, Inc., 2007 WL 4225450, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2007). Rule 26(c) requires a party seeking a protective order to show good cause for issuance of such an order. Fed. R. Civ. 22 P. 26(c)(1). “For good cause to exist under Rule 26(c), ‘the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.’” AGA Shareholders, 2007 WL 4225450, at *1 (emphasis added) (quoting Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002)). The party seeking protection “must make a ‘particularized showing of good cause with respect to [each] individual document.’” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting San Jose Mercury News, 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. || Schmid Prods. Co., 120 F.R.D. 648, 653 (D. Md. 1987)).

6 Here, while the parties acknowledge they must show good cause for the entry of a || protective order, they make no showing of cause. Further, they fail to identify with any || specificity the items they will mark confidential. Accordingly, the proposed protective 9|| order is too generic to meet the standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

10|| Accordingly, 11 IT IS ORDERED that the stipulation for a protective order (Doc. 20) is denied || without prejudice.

13 Dated this 30th day of September, 2020.

15 2 James A. Teilborg 17 Senior United States District Judge _2-