Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00281/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00281-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 245
Nature of Suit: Real Property 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

Brian Matthew Winstanley, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Royal Consumer Information Products,

Inc., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-281 PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant Royal Consumer Information Products asks the Court to enter an order

preserving the confidentiality of documents produced in this litigation for all purposes

outside of this litigation. Dkt. #54. Plaintiff opposes the confidentiality order, arguing that

he should not be limited in his use of the documents. Dkt. #56. 

 “[T]he fruits of pre-trial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary,

presumptively public. Rule 26(c) authorizes a district court to override this presumption

where ‘good cause’ is shown.” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. United States Dist. Ct., 187

F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). “For good cause to exist, the party seeking protection bears

the burden of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is

granted.” Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). “‘Broad

allegations of harm unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not

satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.’” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th

Cir. 1992) (quoting Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3rd Cir. 1986));

see also San Jose Mercury News, Inc., 187 F.3d at 1102 (holding that to gain a protective

Case 2:06-cv-00281-DGC Document 61 Filed 08/30/06 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

27

28

- 2 -

order the party must make a “particularized showing of good cause with respect to any

individual document”). 

The Court has ordered Defendant to produce Consumer Products Safety Commission

(“CPSC”) documents, including correspondence between Royal Consumer Information

Products (“RCIP”) and the CPSC concerning evaluations and corrective actions regarding

the paper shredder at issue in this case. Dkt. #51. Defendant argues that the Court should

impose a protective order because there are courts “around the country where there is either

litigation pending or the possibility of future litigation of similar RCIP products [who] would

be inclined to grant a privileged status to the CPSC documents[.]” Id. Defendant argues that

an order is required to protect it against the “improper use of the documents in other

jurisdictions.” Id.

Defendant has provided only broad allegations of harm unsubstantiated by specific

examples. The prospect of future litigation in unknown states, that may or may not recognize

the self-critical analysis privilege, is simply too speculative to satisfy the good cause showing

required under Rule 26(c). Defendants have asserted the confidentiality of the documents

broadly, do not address any document in particular, have failed to provide specific examples

of pending or anticipated litigation in states that recognize the privilege, and have failed

otherwise to make a particularized showing of good cause. The Court will deny Defendants’

request for a protective order.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Royal Consumer Information Product’s Request

for the Preservation of the Confidentiality of Documents Produced Pursuant to the Court’s

Order (Dkt. #54) is denied.

DATED this 30th day of August, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00281-DGC Document 61 Filed 08/30/06 Page 2 of 2