Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01537/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01537-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham 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

Best Western International, Inc., a

non-profit Arizona corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

James Furber, an Internet website

administrator, and Teresa Furber; James

and Nidrah Dial, Internet website

bloggers and Members of Best Western

International, Inc.; Loren Unruh, an

Internet website blogger and Member of

Best Western International, Inc., and

Gayle Unruh,

Defendants. 

H. Jim Dial, an individual,

Counterclaimant,

vs.

Best Western International, Inc., a

non-profit Arizona corporation; Nils

Kindgren; Larry McRae; Roman

Jaworowicz; Bonnie McPeake; Charles

Helm; Raymond Johnston; and Dave

Francis,

Counterdefendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1537-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant and Counterclaimant H. Jim Dial has served a request for production of

documents on Plaintiff Best Western International, Inc. (“BWI”). Dkt. #239-5. Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-01537-DGC Document 257 Filed 01/17/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

seeks a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with

respect to purported confidential documents and information called for by the request.

Dkt. #239. Defendants oppose the requested protective order. Dkt. #242.

Rule 26(c) authorizes a district court to grant a protective order where “good cause”

is shown. See San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir.

1999). 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.”

Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (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) (citation

omitted). Broad protective orders are equally suspect as they do not require a “particularized

showing of good cause with respect to [each] individual document.” San Jose Mercury

News, 187 F.3d at 1102.

Plaintiff has made no particularized showing in this case. Plaintiff asserts that the

documents Dial seeks to discover contain BWI confidential information. Dkt. #239 at 2.

Plaintiff cites request numbers 4-5, 7-10, 12-16, 19-25, 27-28, 30, 41 as objectionable, but

presents no argument or evidence with respect to any of these requests or with respect to any

specific documents called for by these requests. Attached to Plaintiff’s brief are declarations

of its chief financial officer and two of its vice presidents describing broad categories of

information maintained as confidential by Plaintiff. Dkt. ##239-2, 239-3, 239-4. Plaintiff’s

memorandum merely states that its confidential information is identified in these declarations

(Dkt. #239 at 3), and asserts in a footnote that the declarations show that the documents Dial

seeks to discover are confidential (id. at 4 n.1). But the declarations identify only broad

categories of information that BWI claims are confidential; the declarations do not address

any specific request or document. See Dkt. ##239-2, 239-3, 239-4.

Similarly, the proposed protective order is broad and not tailored to Dial’s specific

discovery requests. It defines as confidential any information, document, or tangible thing

that a party designates as containing (1) information not generally known by or available to

Case 2:06-cv-01537-DGC Document 257 Filed 01/17/08 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

BWI’s members or the public, (2) proprietary business, commercial, and financial

information, (3) information discussed during BWI’s executive sessions, (4) personnel

information, (5) legal and liability information, (6) member information, (7) information

protected by the right to privacy under any state or federal law, and (8) information

potentially damaging to the business or personal interests of a party. Dkt. #239-9 at 1-2.

Such a blanket protective order may not be entered under Rule 26(c). See Foltz v. State Farm

Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003) (reversing district court’s entry of

a blanket protective without requiring the party seeking protection “to show that specific

discovery documents . . . contained [confidential] information”) (emphasis in original); San

Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1103 (holding that blanket protective orders entered under

Rule 26(c) “are inherently subject to challenge and modification, as the party resisting

disclosure generally has not made a particularized showing of good cause with respect to any

individual document”).

Plaintiff previously demonstrated good cause to protect information relating to the

executive sessions of BWI’s Board of Directors. See Dkt. ##174, 199. The Court

accordingly will grant Plaintiff’s request for a protective order with respect to documents

subject to Dial’s request for production of documents that relate to the Board’s executive

sessions.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for a protective order (Dkt. # 239) is

granted in part and denied in part as set forth in this order. The parties shall jointly lodge

a proposed protective order consistent with this order.

DATED this 17th day of December, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01537-DGC Document 257 Filed 01/17/08 Page 3 of 3