Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08093/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08093-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

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

DRK Photo, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., et

al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 12-8093-PCT-PGR

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Protective Order. (Doc. 17.)

Plaintiff opposes the motion in part (Doc. 20), and has filed a motion to submit newly

discovered evidence in support of its opposition (Doc. 21). For the reasons set forth below,

the Court will grant the protective order.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff DRK Photo, a stock photography agency, alleges that Defendant McGrawHill, a textbook publisher, has infringed its copyright by exceeding the scope of license

restrictions pertaining to certain photographs and/or failing to obtain permission to use the

photographs.

Plaintiff has propounded discovery requests seeking the disclosure of information

concerning Defendant’s financial and business performance, strategies, and projections.

Defendant seeks a protective order because “[m]uch of this material constitutes non-public,

trade secret, and sensitive commercial information, the public disclosure of which would

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 42 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 4
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 -

substantially harm McGraw-Hill’s competitive market position by greatly aiding its

competitors.” (Doc. 17 at 4.) Defendant’s proposed protective order lists print quantities

among the categories of confidential, commercially sensitive material. It also requires the

party challenging the producing party’s confidentiality designation to bring the dispute

before the Court. Plaintiff agrees that a protective order is appropriate but objects to these

provisions. 

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides that upon a showing of “good cause”

a court may enter a protective order “requiring that a trade secret or other confidential

research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a

specified way.” See San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. United States Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096,

1103 (9th Cir. 1999). “For good cause to exist, the party seeking protection bears the burden

of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Phillips

ex re. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002). If

a court finds that particularized harm will result from disclosure, then it balances the public

and private interests to decide whether a protective order is necessary. Id. at 1211.

Defendant supports its request for a protective order with Declarations from Marty

Lange, Vice President, General Manager, Products and Markets for Science, Engineering,

Math, Health Professions and Nursing, and Roberts Simons, Senior Vice President, Finance

and Operations, School Education Group, who attest that public disclosure of print-run

information for the titles at issue would provide Defendant’s competitors with insight into

the methods and processes by which Defendant conducts its business and would reveal

sensitive sales data. (Doc. 17, Exs. 4, 5.) According to Lange and Simons, print-run

information would reveal the “shape of the market for a particular category of textbook and

McGraw-Hill’s relative performance in that market” and permit its competitors to “skip the

substantial expense involved in their own market intelligence research” and aid them in

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 42 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 4
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 -

developing their “own marketing plans, determining which markets are vulnerable to

competition, and McGraw-Hill’s internal positions and expectations with regard to market

share.” (Id., ¶¶ 9–11.) Defendant argues that this is sensitive commercial data subject to

protection as confidential under Rule 26(c)(1)(G).

Plaintiff asserts that information concerning print quantities is not confidential

because Defendant itself has not treated the information as confidential. Plaintiff cites

instances where Defendant has disclosed its print run information. Defendant counters that

these limited disclosures to a photographer or agency do not indicate that such print run

information is publicly available. In their Declarations, Lange and Simons state that

Defendant limits internal access to actual and historical print-run information and that when

it “has revealed retrospective print-run information, McGraw-Hill has done so in the context

of business discussions aimed at avoiding litigation or maintaining a commercial relationship,

and its disclosure [was] made pursuant to a trade custom and industry understanding that

such disclosures are not for public dissemination.” (Doc. 17, Exs. 4, 5, ¶¶ 13, 15.)

Plaintiff also notes that Defendant “voluntarily disclosed actual print run quantities

and dates to DRK” in 2010 “without requiring that this information be kept confidential.”

(Doc. 20 at 7.) The Court agrees with Defendant, however, that there is a distinction between

“disclosures in the context of a business discussions aimed at avoiding litigation . . . and the

industry expectation that DRK Photo not disclose such print-run information to McGrawHill’s competitors.” (Doc. 24 at 7.) Defendant’s decision not to move to seal certain Exhibits

is tangential to the question of whether other non-public material may be designated

confidential.

The Court concludes from the entirety of the record before it that Defendant has

shown good cause to enter the protective order. Other courts have similarly determined that

a publisher established the commercial sensitivity of its print runs and related information.

See Wu v. Pearson Education, Inc., No. 09-6557 (S.D.N.Y.); Grant Heilman Photography,

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 42 Filed 10/16/12 Page 3 of 4
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

1

 As Defendant notes, in a similar case this Court entered a protective order mirroring

the order sought by Defendant. Bean v. Pearson Education, Inc., 11-CV-8030-PGR (D.

Ariz.). To the Court’s knowledge, this order has functioned as intended and has not been the

subject of disputes between the parties.

- 4 -

Inc. v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publ’g Co., No. 10-CV-00584 (E.D. Pa.); Grant Heilman

Photography, Inc. v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., No. 11-CV-01665 (E.D. Pa.); Degginger v.

Pearson Education, Inc., No. 11-CV-01302-GP (E.D. Pa.). 

The Court will also adopt the procedure proposed by Defendant. The objecting party

will bear the initial burden of challenging the confidential designation, while the designating

party will bear the final burden of showing good cause to maintain the document’s

confidentiality. This arrangement does not improperly shift the burden under Rule 26(c), and,

as other courts have found, it provides a direct and efficient means of identifying the specific

objections to a contested confidentiality designation.1 See, e.g., White v. GC Servs. Ltd.

P’ship, No. 08-11532, 2009 WL 174503, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 23, 2009); Johnson v.

Kemps, No. 09 CV 4857, 2011 WL 2550507, at *5 (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2011); Hecht v.

BabyAge.com, No. 3:10cv724, 2010 WL 4683749, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 10, 2010). It also

comports with the process set out in LRCiv. 5.6(d), which places on the submitting party the

initial burden of bringing a confidentiality dispute to the Court’s attention.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Protective

Order (Doc. 17).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Submit Newly

Discovered Evidence (Doc. 21).

DATED this 16th day of October, 2012.

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 42 Filed 10/16/12 Page 4 of 4