United States District Court, D. Arizona
A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge
before the Court is a motion to seal and a motion for a
protective order.Turning to the request for a protective
order first, Plaintiff seeks a protective order stating,
“Protective orders are commonplace in the two main bid
protest forums-the Government Accountability Office  and
the U.S. Court of Federal Claims .” (Doc. 7 at 2). Of
course, this Court is neither of those forums; thus, this
Court will apply the law of the Ninth Circuit.
motion for protective order defines protected information as:
“information that must be protected to safeguard the
competitive process, including source
selection information, proprietary information and
confidential information….” (Doc. 7-1 at 2)
(emphasis added). This open-ended definition is far too broad
to qualify for a protective order in this Circuit.
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)).
“[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)).
Plaintiff seeks unfettered discretion in marking whatever it
chooses as confidential. Further, Plaintiff has not made a
particularized showing as to any documents or other
materials. Thus, the protective order sought is too broad and
will be denied as such.
Plaintiff seeks to file its motion for temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction under seal. (Doc. 10). This
motion suffers from the same over inclusiveness as the motion
for a protective order. Specifically, the motion to seal
claims that the motion for injunctive relief contains
“highly sensitive trade secrets” of Plaintiff.
(Doc. 10 at 2). While this might be true, the motion to seal
seeks to seal the entire motion for injunctive relief.
Court has reviewed the motion for injunctive relief. By way
of example, pages 4 and 5 recount what Plaintiff argues is
the governing law. The Court cannot imagine cause for the law
to be sealed. Further, when the motion for injunctive relief
is compared to the unsealed complaint, many of the facts
overlap. Again, the Court cannot imagine cause to seal facts
that are already in the public record. Accordingly, Plaintiff
has not shown compelling reasons to file the entire motion
under seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler
Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (9th Cir.),
cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto
Safety, 137 S.Ct. 38 (2016).
the Court will deny the filing of the lodged motion under
seal. Plaintiff may either re-file the motion unsealed, or,
if Plaintiff chooses to again seek to file under seal,
Plaintiff must simultaneously file an unsealed, redacted
version of the same document, redacting only the information
Plaintiff can show compelling reasons to seal. Any
accompanying motion to seal must detail why each piece of
redacted information must be sealed. The same is true for any
on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the
motion for protective order (Doc. 7) is denied, without
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to seal (Doc. 10)
is denied. The Clerk of the Court shall leave Doc. 9 lodged,
 Defendant has not been served, or
appeared, so the Court has not waited for a response to