Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00062/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00062-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

AGA Shareholders, LLC, an Illinois

limited liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

CSK Auto, Inc., an Arizona corporation;

Maynard L. Jenkins; Martin G. Fraser;

and Donald W. Watson, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-62-PHX-DGC

ORDER

The parties have filed a motion and stipulation for a protective order pursuant to Rule

26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #112; see Dkt. #105. The Court will

deny the motion.

The parties seek a protective order under Rule 26(c)(2) and (7) on the ground that

certain materials that will be disclosed during the course of discovery may be commercially

sensitive or otherwise deserving of protection from public view. Id. at 1. “It is wellestablished that 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.” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,

187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted).

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,

Case 2:07-cv-00062-DGC Document 115 Filed 11/28/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

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 made no such showing in this case. The parties do not identify any

particular document that may be entitled to protection under Rule 26(c). Rather, the parties

seek a protective order under which all documents “relating to, referring to, or exchanged

between CSK and any CSK vendor other than Plaintiff, no matter how obtained, shall be

deemed confidential[.]” Dkt. #112-2 at 1. 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 motion.

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ motion and stipulation for protective order

(Dkt. #112) is denied.

DATED this 28th day of November, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00062-DGC Document 115 Filed 11/28/07 Page 2 of 2