Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01185/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01185-0/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 

 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.” 

Case 2:16-cv-01185-JAT Document 24 Filed 09/19/16 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 

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. 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. 

 Dated this 19th day of September, 2016. 

 

Case 2:16-cv-01185-JAT Document 24 Filed 09/19/16 Page 2 of 2