Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01197/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01197-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

-1- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

WO 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

EXP PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES 

CORP., a California company, 

 plaintiff, 

vs. 

BESTIT.COM, INC., an Arizona Company 

 defendant. 

 Case No. CV 15-01197-PHX-JAT 

ORDER 

The parties filed a stipulated protective order to: “prohibit[] the public release of 

confidential, personal, private, financial and proprietary information of the parties 

herein....” 

 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 

Case 2:15-cv-01197-JAT Document 30 Filed 12/14/15 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

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.” 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, while the parties have offered categories of documents they intend to mark as 

confidential; they have failed to make a particularized showing as to what such documents 

would be or why the documents would qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(c). Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the stipulation for protective order (Doc. 28) is denied 

without prejudice. 

 Dated this 14th day of December, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-01197-JAT Document 30 Filed 12/14/15 Page 2 of 2