Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02399/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02399-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Declaratory Judgement

---

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 

WO 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Airbus DS Optronics GmbH, a foreign 

company, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Nivisys, LLC, a Delaware limited liability 

company; XYZ Corporations, ABC 

partnerships, and John and Jane Does 1-10, 

Defendants. 

CV-14-2399-PHX-JAT 

ORDER

On December 19, 2014, the Court entered the following Order: 

The parties’ have filed a stipulation for a protective order. In the 

stipulation, the parties make no showing that a protective order is necessary 

in this case. See Doc. 17. 

Further, 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)). 

As a result of the foregoing, 

Case 2:14-cv-02399-JAT Document 26 Filed 01/29/15 Page 1 of 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 

-2- 

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation for a protective order 

(Doc. 17) is denied without prejudice. 

Doc. 18. 

Thereafter, the parties submitted a second stipulation for the entry of a protective 

order. Doc. 19. In this second stipulation, the parties listed two documents that would be 

subject to the protective order, and articulated a basis for needing a protective order for 

these two documents. Id. at 1-2. However, the parties attached a proposed form of 

protective order that far exceeds the scope of their identified basis for needing a protective 

order. See 19-1 at 1-11. 

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ second stipulation for entry of a protective 

order (Doc. 19) is denied without prejudice to the parties’ filing a third stipulation for 

entry of a protective order in which the proposed form of order is consistent with the 

parties’ articulated basis for requiring a protective order. 

Dated this 29th day of January, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02399-JAT Document 26 Filed 01/29/15 Page 2 of 2