Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01185/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01185-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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 

Paul E White, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Home Depot USA Incorporated, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-16-01185-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 The parties previously moved for a protective order and the Court issued the 

following Order: 

 Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for a protective 

order. 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.” 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)). 

 Here, the proposed protective order states that the information will 

be designated confidential, “...if counsel determines, in good faith, that 

such designation is necessary to protect the interests of the client.” Doc. 

Case 2:16-cv-01185-JAT Document 26 Filed 09/23/16 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 

20-1 at 1. Such a standard is far too broad under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(c). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the joint motion for protective order (Doc. 

20) is denied, without prejudice. 

Doc. 24. 

 The parties have filed a second motion for a protective order. The Court questions 

whether the parties read the cases cited in this Court’s prior order. Specifically, the 

parties have now sought to designate everything confidential when “counsel determines, 

in good faith, that such designation is necessary to protect the interests of the client and 

the document is (a) a trade secret or other confidential information within the scope of 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), (b) information that is confidential regarding the Plaintiffs and may 

cause embarrassment or annoyance upon disclosure, and/or (c) information that may 

cause embarrassment regarding a third-party.” Doc. 25-1 at 1-2. 

 As the prior order states, in bold, documents or depositions to be designated 

confidential must be specifically identified and the harm resulting from their disclosure 

must be identified. Instead of attempting to comply with this law, the parties sought to 

designate confidential anything that might cause embarrassment or annoyance upon 

disclosure. While these are words found in Rule 26 as a basis for seeking a protective 

order, the protective order could include the Court disallowing discovery targeted as such 

an improper goal. Those words were not intended to give counsel leave to conduct all 

discovery in a case subject to a protective order, which appears to be what counsel in this 

case really wants to accomplish. 

 Because the parties have now tried twice to get this Court to approve an over 

broad protective order, the Court will deny any advance protective order. If a particular 

document (or category of documents) is sought in discovery, and counsel can show good 

cause for either not disclosing those documents or disclosing them subject to a protective 

order, counsel may seek a protective order on a document by document basis prior to 

disclosure. If the parties seek to protect a topic that may arise in a deposition, they must 

seek protection in advance of that deposition. In so moving, counsel must avow that the 

Case 2:16-cv-01185-JAT Document 26 Filed 09/23/16 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 

information has been maintained confidential by the parties up to this point (i.e. not 

shared with friends, posted on social media, or otherwise not maintained in confidence). 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for a prospective protective order (Doc. 25) is 

denied. 

 Dated this 23rd day of September, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-01185-JAT Document 26 Filed 09/23/16 Page 3 of 3