Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01996/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01996-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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 

Alejandra Ruiz, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Experian Information Solutions 

Incorporated, 

Defendant.

No. CV-15-01996-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation for a protective order (Doc. 

27). The parties seek a protective order for anything that contains “confidential 

commercial or financial information or trade secret information to which they in good 

faith believe access should be limited to litigation counsel....” Doc. 27-1 at 3. 

 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 2:15-cv-01996-JAT Document 28 Filed 04/08/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 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)). 

 In this case, the parties have failed to make a particularized showing justifying a 

protective order. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the stipulation for a protective order (Doc. 27) is denied, 

without prejudice. 

 Dated this 8th day of April, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-01996-JAT Document 28 Filed 04/08/16 Page 2 of 2