Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02529/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02529-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CECILIA H. CORDERO,

Plaintiff,

v.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-2529 MJJ (EMC) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Docket No. 41)

Defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al. (“Experian”) moves for the court to

issue a protective order over certain administrative reports and dispute response logs produced in the

course of discovery by Plaintiff Cecilia H. Cordero (“Cordero”). This Court, having reviewed the

briefs filed by counsel and the record in this case, as well as having considered the oral arguments of

counsel, GRANTS Experian’s motion to the extent that it requires the protected documents to be

filed under seal and according to the conditions regulating “Confidential” documents under the

standing interim protective order.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(7) provides, in relevant part:

“Upon motion by a party or by a person from whom discovery is

sought . . . and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is

pending . . . may make any order which justice requires to protect a

party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue

burden or expense, including one of more of the following:

(7) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or

commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in

designated way 

. . . . 

Case 3:06-cv-02529-MJJ Document 95 Filed 11/14/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

The moving party has the burden of establishing both that the documents for which they seek

protection include matters appropriate for protection and that there is “good cause” to grant

protection. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2003). “For

good cause to exist, the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or

harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors

Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-1211 (9th Cir. 2002). “If a court finds particularized harm will result

from disclosure of information to the public, then it balances the public and private interests to

decide whether a protective order is necessary.” Id. at 1211.

Experian alleges that the administrative reports and dispute resolution logs at issue contain

the outputs of their “confidential and proprietary” credit reporting system, Find Consumer, in the

form of confidential codes. Experian claims the development and use of “Find Consumer” is the

core of their business. Experian also claims the codes at issue are not voluntarily disclosed and that

it limits access to information within its own corporate structure to protect the secret design of Find

Consumer. The Court is satisfied that the output of Find Consumer embodied in the administrative

reports and dispute response log containing various internal codes and fields constitutes the type of

confidential information not normally available to the public, and thus meets the first element under

Rule 26(c)(7). 

The question is whether there is a sufficiently specific showing of harm to constitute “good

cause” to grant the protection. Experian fears that the documents at issue could aid their competitors

and those intent on undermining the credit reporting industry in reverse engineering Find Consumer. 

Experian alleges that one could reverse engineer Find Consumer if enough of its code outputs were

made available. Experian stipulates that the documents at issue alone would not be sufficient to

reverse engineer Find Consumer, but claims that an extensive release of such documents would. It

appears to this Court that Experian’s alleged harm seems remote. However, the Court is persuaded

by the fact that at least one other court (the only court that has adjudicated this issue) has granted

protection of Experian’s administrative reports and dispute response logs for the same reasons urged

here. See Vidal v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al., 2005 WL 281200 (E.D.Pa.). The

result reached is Vidal appears reasonable. In balancing the potential harms and interests, this Court

Case 3:06-cv-02529-MJJ Document 95 Filed 11/14/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

notes it is merely requiring the documents at issue be filed under seal, not that they be excluded from

discovery. There appears to be little private or public interest that would be impaired. Cordero

argues that having to file the relevant documents under seal will prove burdensome. However, this

Court is requiring nothing more then the treatment of these documents as “Confidential” pursuant to

the already existing interim protective order. The inconvenience of filing these particular exhibits

under seal is slight. Cordero identifies no substantive harm to its litigation position. Although there

is a common law right of access to documents filed in civil cases, Republic of Philippines v.

Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 949 F.2d 653, 659-60 (3rd Cir. 1991), the documents in question here

would appear to contain matters that are of little public interest, especially when compared to the

materials and briefs herein otherwise available to the public.

The Court thus finds that there are no private or public interest against a protective order

which outweighs Experian’s interest (even though somewhat remote) in preserving the

confidentiality of the reports at issue.

Experian’s motion is granted. This order disposes of Docket No. 41.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2006

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02529-MJJ Document 95 Filed 11/14/06 Page 3 of 3