Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-03730/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-03730-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

Honeywell International Inc., a Delaware 

corporation, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Forged Metals, Inc., a California 

corporation,

Defendant.

No. CV-19-03730-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint request for a protective order. The 

parties seek to mark as confidential: “... any information contained or disclosed in any 

materials that a party or non-party believes in good faith to be confidential or sensitive 

information that qualifies for protection pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).” (Doc. 34-1 at 

2). This request is too broad to qualify for protection.

Specifically, 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)).

Case 2:19-cv-03730-JAT Document 35 Filed 03/24/20 Page 1 of 4
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

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 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 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 

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

current request for a protective order will be denied, without prejudice.

In addition to the above concerns, the Court notes that the parties also mention 

three categories of protected documents: 1) documents subject to the Export 

Administration Regulations (“EAR”), 15 C.F.R. §§ 730 et seq.; 2) documents subject to 

the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”), 22 C.F.R. §§ 120 et seq.; and 3) 

documents designated as classified by the United States government. With respect 

classified information, the parties appear to agree that neither party will produce classified 

information;1thus the Court finds no issue with this type of information to be ripe.

As to the other two kinds of information, the parties state:

For purposes of this Order, “EXPORT CONTROLLED 

INFORMATION” means information that is subject to the requirements of 

the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), 15 C.F.R. §§ 730 et seq., 

and/or the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”), 22 C.F.R. 

§§ 120 et seq. Such information may be contained in documents that a 

disclosing party furnishes in this case related to remote sensing systems, 

technology, software, or defense articles. A protective order is warranted, 

and there is good cause for special treatment of these categories of 

information because federal law subjects such information to specific rules 

related to designation, use, access, and disclosure, and imposes civil and 

criminal penalties for violations. 

All information designated as “EXPORT CONTROLLED 

INFORMATION” will be considered “CONFIDENTIAL 

INFORMATION” unless also designated as “CONFIDENTIAL 

INFORMATION – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” and will be subject to 

all restrictions applicable to other information so designated, and will also 

be subject to the additional restrictions set forth herein. Disclosing parties 

and receiving parties are responsible for ensuring that “EXPORT 

CONTROLLED INFORMATION” in their possession, custody or control 

is not made public. To prevent public disclosure of “EXPORT 

CONTROLLED INFORMATION,” the parties must follow the procedure 

outlined in this paragraph before any document is: (1) “exported,” as that 

term is described in 15 U.S.C. § 730.5(c) or 22 C.F.R § 120.17; or (2) 

otherwise made public. All “EXPORT CONTROLLED INFORMATION”

1

 It appears that if classified information is relevant, the party with the classified 

information in its possession will produce a privilege log.

Case 2:19-cv-03730-JAT Document 35 Filed 03/24/20 Page 2 of 4
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

will (1) be furnished by U.S. Persons as defined by U.S. export control laws 

and regulations (hereafter “U.S. Persons”) directly to counsel and through 

encrypted media or using encrypted transfer methods, (2) be identified as

“EXPORT CONTROLLED INFORMATION,” and (3) be maintained in 

an encrypted database or format as specified by U.S. export control laws 

and regulations. Counsel must ensure that they and their personnel who 

receive “EXPORT CONTROLLED INFORMATION”, and any other 

permitted recipient to whom counsel furnishes such information, are and 

will be U.S. Persons, that they will store all “EXPORT CONTROLLED 

INFORMATION” in a manner such that access is restricted only to U.S. 

Persons, and that no “EXPORT CONTROLLED INFORMATION” will be 

physically transported or transmitted outside U.S. territory. Before 

furnishing any document (including “EXPORT CONTROLLED 

INFORMATION”, any written discovery, and any deposition transcript) to 

a non-U.S. Person, including by publicly filing the document with the 

Court, counsel shall determine whether the document contains “EXPORT 

CONTROLLED INFORMATION”. Counsel may seek assistance from 

opposing counsel, or counsel for non-parties, regarding “EXPORT 

CONTROL INFORMATION” designations, in which case opposing 

counsel shall provide the requested determination within ten (10) business 

days, or as soon as reasonably possible under the circumstances. If a 

particular document contains “EXPORT CONTROLLED 

INFORMATION”, counsel for the parties shall take all steps to ensure that 

the document or information is used and accessed in accordance with EAR, 

15 C.F.R. §§ 730 et seq., and/or ITAR, 22 C.F.R. §§ 120 et seq., and 

disclosed only to U.S. Persons or as otherwise permitted under U.S. law.

(Doc. 34-1 at 2, 10).

First, the Court is not confident that a protective order is adequate to permit the 

parties to exchange information under these statutes. Thus, if the parties renew their 

request for a protective order, the parties must quote a specific section of each statute that 

gives the Court permission to override the statute and permit disclosure of the information

protected under the statutes.

Second, the parties stipulate that information subject to these statutes much be filed 

under seal, and/or reviewed by the Court in camera. (Doc. 34-1 at 12-13). However, the 

Court notes that the parties’ proposed protective order requires that the information: “(3) 

be maintained in an encrypted database or format as specified by U.S. export control laws 

and regulations.” Id. The Court is unclear whether this Court’s email system and/or 

electronic filing system would meet these requirements.

Further, if the Court has such information in chambers for in camera review, ITAR 

requires: “Transfer of ITAR controlled documents (in whole or in part) or the information 

contained in them to any person who is not a U.S. citizen, a lawful permanent resident of 

Case 2:19-cv-03730-JAT Document 35 Filed 03/24/20 Page 3 of 4
4

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

the United States, or a protected individual under U.S. laws is generally not permitted.” 

TSI Inc. v. Azbil BioVigilant Inc., No. CV-12-00083-PHX-DGC, 2014 WL 880408, at *3 

n.5 (D. Ariz. Mar. 6, 2014). The Court is unclear whether this would require that all 

persons who have access to chambers (which includes by way of example GSA personnel, 

janitorial personnel, maintenance personnel, security personnel and interns and externs) 

meet the definitions of the statutes.

Against this backdrop, even if the parties can show that this Court has the power 

to order the exchange of these documents subject to a protective order, the Court is not 

inclined to permit them to be filed (even under seal) or sent to the Court in camera. Thus, 

if documents of this sensitive of a nature are critical to the determination of this case, the 

parties are strongly encouraged to pursue a dispute resolution mechanism other than a 

public court. Ultimately, if a party moves to file or use any information subject to either 

statute in Court, it will be that party’s responsibility to advise the Court of 100% of the 

requirements that must be in place prior to disclosure to the Court.2

Based on the foregoing,

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

without prejudice.

Dated this 24th day of March, 2020.

2 By way of further example of the Court’s concerns, the proposed protective order 

states, “Any court hearing or proceeding in which Protected Material is submitted shall, 

in the Court’s discretion, be held in camera.” (Doc. 34-1 at 13). However, both parties 

have demanded a jury trial. The Court cannot determine how the parties expect such a 

provision to work in a jury trial.

Case 2:19-cv-03730-JAT Document 35 Filed 03/24/20 Page 4 of 4