Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01110/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01110-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

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

Linda Alberico Pelland, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

KFC Corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1110-PHX-DGC

ORDER

The parties have filed a stipulated motion for the entry of a protective order. Dkt. #39.

The Court will deny the motion.

Two standards generally govern requests to seal documents. “First, a ‘compelling

reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, --- F.3d

---, Nos. 04-17485, 04-17558, 2007 WL 2743502, at *5 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2007). “This

standard derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and

documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City &

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)).

The second standard applies to discovery materials. “‘Private materials unearthed

during discovery’ are not part of the judicial record.” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

1180) (alteration omitted). The “good cause” standard set forth in Rule 26(c) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure applies to this category of documents. See id.; San Jose Mercury

News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well-established that

Case 2:07-cv-01110-DGC Document 40 Filed 11/27/07 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 -

the fruits of pretrial 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.”) (citations omitted). 

The good cause standard applies in this case because the parties seek to protect from

public view “certain documents, answers to interrogatories or other discovery requests, and

testimony in depositions[.]” Dkt. #39 at 2. 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). Rather, the party seeking protection must

make a “particularized showing of good cause with respect to [each] individual document.”

San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1102.

The parties have not made such a showing in this case. The parties do not identify any

particular document or information that may be unearthed through the discovery process.

Rather, the parties seek a protective order under which they may unilaterally designate as

confidential any document or information disclosed during discovery. Dkt. #39-2 at 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) (holding that the district court abused its

discretion under Rule 26(c) by entering a blanket protective without requiring the party

seeking protection “to show that specific discovery documents, whether eventually filed with

the court or not, contained [confidential] information”) (emphasis in original); San Jose

Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1103 (holding that blanket stipulated 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”). The Court will deny the motion.

/ / /

/ / / 

Case 2:07-cv-01110-DGC Document 40 Filed 11/27/07 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 -

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulated motion for entry of protective order

(Dkt. #39) is denied.

DATED this 27th day of November, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01110-DGC Document 40 Filed 11/27/07 Page 3 of 3