Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00225/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00225-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Allstate Insurance Company
Defendant
Cheryl Bliss
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

 A party may have the right to protect from public disclosure information which has 1

been produced to the other party only because of discovery and which has not been filed with the

court. Seattle Times v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33, 37, 104 S. Ct. 2199, 2207, 2209 (1984). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHERYL BLISS,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-07-0225 FCD GGH

vs.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ORDER

Defendant. 

 /

The parties have sought to have the court sign a protective order where documents

designated by the parties as “confidential,” or “highly confidential” are automatically filed under

seal. Some protective orders enable the parties to designate so much material as “confidential”

that, in essence, entire case filings are sealed. The protective order submitted by the parties has

the same potential problem. This court will not approve a protective order giving blanket

authority to the parties to designate what shall be filed under seal. 

Discovery information disclosed in court filings generally is available to the

public. See San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. United States Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th

Cir.1999) (“[i]t is well-established that the fruits of pre-trial discovery are, in the absence of a

court order to the contrary, presumptively public”). 

1

Case 2:07-cv-00225-FCD-GGH Document 32 Filed 08/29/08 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

2

Protective orders safeguard the parties and other persons in light of the otherwise

broad reach of discovery. United States v. CBS, Inc., 666 F.2d 364, 368-69 (9th Cir. 1982). The

court has great discretion to issue protective orders if discovery causes annoyance,

embarrassment, oppression, undue burden, or expense. B.R.S. Land Investors v. United States,

596 F.2d 353, 356 (9th Cir. 1979). Good cause, however, is required to obtain a protective order. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Foltz v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.

2003); Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Generally, the

public can gain access to litigation documents and information produced during discovery unless

the party opposing disclosure shows ‘good cause’ why a protective order is necessary”). 

 “Good cause” to bar the public from litigation documents must be more than

mere desire. The party seeking protection must show specific prejudice or harm, including, with

respect to individual documents, particular and specific need. Id.; San Jose Mercury News, Inc.,

187 F.3d at 1102; W.W. Schwarzer, A.W. Tashima & J. Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure

Before Trial § 11:88. “If a court finds particularized harm will result from disclosure of

information to the public, then it balances the public and private interests to decide whether a

protective order is necessary.” Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1211 (citing Glenmade Trust Co. v.

Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir.1995) (factors)). 

Accordingly, if the parties desire a protective order to be filed in this court, the

parties shall submit a protective order which permits a filing under seal only upon a

particularized showing of good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 08/28/08 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

U.S. Magistrate Judge

GGH:976

Bliss0225.po.wpd

Case 2:07-cv-00225-FCD-GGH Document 32 Filed 08/29/08 Page 2 of 2