Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02209/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02209-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - 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

Kenneth Long, the surviving father of

Cynthia Jo Johnson, deceased, as

Guardian and/or next best friend of

minors, Christopher Dean Johnson and

Sean McKnight; Cherish Leighan

Rogers, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc., a

foreign corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-2209-PHX-DGC

ORDER

The parties agree that a protective order is needed in this case. Dkt. #26 at 18. As

required by the Court (Dkt. #28 at 5), the parties have filed memoranda on whether the

protective order should contain a sharing provision (Dkt. ##31, 32). Plaintiffs assert that

sharing provisions are consistent with the scope and purpose of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, that is, “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action

and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Defendant argues that a sharing provision would not

adequately protect the confidential and proprietary nature of the information subject to the

protective order.

This Circuit “strongly favors access to discovery materials to meet the needs of parties

engaged in collateral litigation.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122,

1131 (9th Cir. 2003). A collateral litigant, however, “should not be granted automatic access

to a defendant’s confidential documents.” Kelly v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

Case 2:09-cv-02209-DGC Document 34 Filed 04/29/10 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 -

No. 04-CV-0807-WQH (JMA), 2008 WL 5132851, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2008). “[T]he

collateral litigant must demonstrate the relevance of the protected discovery to the collateral

proceedings and its general discoverability therein.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1132. This relevance

requirement “prevents collateral litigants from gaining access to discovery materials merely

to subvert limitations on discovery in another proceeding.” Id.

In applying these principles, the court that entered the protective order must “satisfy

itself that the protected discovery is sufficiently relevant to the collateral litigation that a

substantial amount of duplicative discovery will be avoided by modifying the protective

order.” Id. That court also “must weigh the countervailing reliance interest of the party

opposing modification against the policy of avoiding duplicative discovery.” Id. at 1113.

Disputes over the ultimate discoverability of specific materials covered by the protective

order must be resolved by the collateral court. Id.

Plaintiffs seek to circumvent all of these principles and procedures by including, in

the first instance, a sharing provision in the protective order to be entered in this case. Stated

differently, Plaintiffs seek the ability to share confidential and proprietary material

discovered in this case “with collateral litigants without needing to seek to modify the

protective order and obtain a relevance determination from the Court, and without requiring

the collateral courts to resolve any disputes which may arise with respect to the

discoverability of the materials in the collateral cases.” Kelly, 2008 WL 5132851, at *2.

Plaintiffs’ request for the entry of a sharing protective order, therefore, will be denied. See

id. at *3-4; Wilson v. Rolls-Royce Motor Cars, Inc., Civ. No. 93-1073-FR, 1994 WL 398347,

at *2 (D. Or. July 22, 1994).

The Court recognizes that collateral litigants generally have the right of access to

public records and documents, see Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Association, 565 F.3d 1106,

1115 (9th Cir. 2009), and that the fruits of pretrial discovery are presumptively public, see

San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. District Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999).

This general right of access, however, is trumped where the defendant establishes good cause

to protect discovery materials. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1); San Jose Mercury News, 187

Case 2:09-cv-02209-DGC Document 34 Filed 04/29/10 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 -

F.3d at 1103. The sharing of discovery will not be forever precluded by the entry of a nonsharing protective order. “Rather, collateral litigants desiring any discovery produced

pursuant to the protective order will simply have to go through the appropriate steps to obtain

that discovery, as set forth in Foltz.” Kelly, 2008 WL 5132851, at *3.

IT IS ORDERED

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of a sharing protective order (Dkt. #31) is denied.

2. Defendant’s motion for entry of a non-sharing protective order (Dkt. #32) is

granted.

3. By May 14, 2010, the parties shall lodge a stipulated proposed non-sharing

protective order, and Defendant shall file a memorandum of five pages or less

establishing good cause for the entry of that protective order. The stipulated

protective order should comply with LRCiv 5.6.

DATED this 29th day of April, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02209-DGC Document 34 Filed 04/29/10 Page 3 of 3