Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02157/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02157-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jane F. Williams, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Zimmer Holdings Incorporated, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-02157-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for a protective order. (Doc. 

34). As a general matter, 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. 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)). 

 Thus, “[t]he burden is on the party to requesting a protective order to demonstrate 

that (1) the material in question is a trade secret or other confidential information within 

the scope of Rule 26(c), and (2) disclosure would cause an identifiable, significant harm.” 

Case 2:14-cv-02157-JAT Document 36 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 

Deford v. Schmid Prods. Co., 120 F.R.D. 648, 653 (D. Md. 1987)). 

 In this case, Defendant has attempted to make some particularized showing, 

stating that Plaintiff seeks: “confidential and trade secret documents and information 

generally not available in the open market and not placed into the public domain by 

Zimmer. These documents and information include, for example, product design 

configurations, product design drawings, product test reports, marketing information, 

research and development information, and other non-public and proprietary information 

relating to the Device.” Doc. 34 at 2 (emphasis added). However, the protective order 

sought by the parties is not limited to this information. Further, even as to the 

information listed, Defendant states that “Zimmer” does not make the information 

available publically, not that the information is not publically available or that Defendant 

would be prejudiced if it were publically available. 

 Additionally, Defendant states that the above list is “among” the items sought by 

Plaintiff. Id. Further, the parties state that they also intend to mark confidential 

Plaintiff’s “confidential and private” medical, employment and financial information. 

The parties have made no showing that this information is actually kept confidential and 

the Court finds it difficult to imagine that Plaintiff’s employment history is actually 

confidential. Further, significant amounts of Plaintiff’s medical history are already 

recounted in the complaint in this case. 

 Thus, based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the parties have failed to make a 

particularized showing of good cause with respect to each document. As a result the 

request for a protective order will be denied. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for protective order (Doc. 34) is denied, 

without prejudice. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:14-cv-02157-JAT Document 36 Filed 01/12/16 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if the parties elect to file a timely, new 

motion for protective order, they must submit a proposed form of order to chambers as 

required by the administrative policies and procedures manual. 

 Dated this 11th day of January, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-02157-JAT Document 36 Filed 01/12/16 Page 3 of 3