Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00342/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00342-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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 

Karen M. Baker, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Walgreens Arizona Drug Company, 

Defendant.

No. CV-15-00342-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 On November 24, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation for a protective order. The 

Court denied that stipulation issuing the following order: 

 The parties have stipulated to a protective order stating, 

“...documentation that may be produced by the parties contains 

information which the parties contend is proprietary, private, sensitive, 

confidential or otherwise deserving of protection from public 

disclosure....” Doc. 25 at 1. 

 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.” 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)). 

Case 2:15-cv-00342-JAT Document 32 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

 Here, the parties have failed to make the necessary showing required 

to justify a protective order. 

Doc. 28. 

 Discovery closed in this case on December 7, 2015. The Court denied the request 

for a Protective Order on December 11, 2015, 11 business days after it was filed. 

However, apparently, Defendant disclosed documents on the assumption the Court would 

issue a protective order. See Doc. 31. As a result, on January 6, 2016, a month after the 

close of discovery, Defendant filed another motion for protective order. 

 First, the Court finds the second motion for a protective order to be untimely. 

Footnote One of the Scheduling Order (which the parties have had since July 29, 2015) 

states: 

 As set forth in the Order Setting Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, the 

Court will not entertain discovery disputes after the close of discovery 

barring extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, the parties shall complete 

all discovery by the deadline set forth in this Order (complete being defined 

as including the time to propound discovery, the time to answer all 

propounded discovery, the time for the Court to resolve all discovery 

disputes, and the time to complete any final discovery necessitated by the 

Court’s ruling on any discovery disputes). Thus, “last minute” or “eleventh 

hour” discovery which results in insufficient time to undertake additional 

discovery and which requires an extension of the discovery deadline will be 

met with disfavor, and may result in denial of an extension, exclusion of 

evidence, or the imposition of other sanctions. 

Doc. 15 at 2 n. 1. 

 Here, seeking a protective order 11 business days before the close of discovery is 

inadequate to timely present the issue to the Court. 

 Second, in this Court’s original order denying a protective order, the Court 

articulated that it would not issue “global” protective orders. The renewed motion for a 

protective order does little to cure this deficiency, but instead argues that the documents 

have already been disclosed and that Plaintiff should be held to her stipulation. While the 

Court will not offer an advisory opinion on whether that agreement might be enforceable 

between the parties in a state law breach of contract action should a breach occur in the 

future, the fact that the parties agreed does not meet the standard under Rule 26. 

Accordingly, the renewed request for a protective order is denied for this alternative 

Case 2:15-cv-00342-JAT Document 32 Filed 01/12/16 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

reason. Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for protective order (Doc. 31) is denied. 

 Dated this 11th day of January, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00342-JAT Document 32 Filed 01/12/16 Page 3 of 3