Contractor Management Services LLC v. Para Incorporated et al

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
Contractor Management Services LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Para Incorporated, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-01645-PHX-DWL
ORDER
The parties have jointly moved for the entry of a protective order. (Doc. 42.) The
parties’ proposed order differs, in a number of ways, from the Court’s model protective
order. Although most of the parties’ proposed revisions are acceptable, two are not.
First, in ¶ 10, which specifies the process for objecting to a confidentiality
designation, the parties seek to add the following language: “On such a challenge, the
objecting party shall bear the burden of showing that the challenged designation is
improper.” (Doc. 42-1 at 8-9.) Although some courts appear to allow the parties to
stipulate as to who bears the burden proof in this scenario, see, e.g., Penn Eng’g & Mfg.
Corp. v. Peninsula Components, Inc., 2021 WL 4192038, *2 (E.D. Pa. 2021) (citing cases),
other courts do not. Biogen Int’l GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2019 WL
13562242, *3 (N.D. W. Va. 2019) (declining to follow the provision in a “Stipulated
Protective Order [that] placed the burden on the party challenging a confidentiality
designation” because “[w]hen a party challenges the confidentiality designations of certain
documents, the designating party must justify each designation by demonstrating ‘good
Case 2:25-cv-01645-DWL Document 46 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 2

- 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
cause’ under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), regardless of contrary provisions in a
stipulated protective order”) (citations omitted). The Court finds the latter line of cases
persuasive, so the proposed language will not be added.
Second, in ¶ 11, which specifies the process for determining whether a party may
“be permitted to disclose Materials designated as Confidential Information to individuals
not permitted by this Order to view such Materials,” the parties seek to add the following
language: “On such a motion, the requesting party shall bear the burden of showing that
compelling reasons justify the requested access.” (Doc. 42-1 at 9.) The Court’s concern
here is not with the allocation of the burden of proof, but with the standard of proof that
the parties seek to adopt. “Compelling reasons” is a term of art in this context governing
whether the substantive standard for sealing has been met. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). That standard does not map neatly onto a
dispute over whether confidential information may be shown to a particular party, and the
Court is wary of uncritically adopting a stipulated standard that will only result in confusion
should a future dispute arise.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion for protective order (Doc. 42) is
granted in part and denied in part. The protective order, as modified, will separately
issue.
Dated this 27th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-01645-DWL Document 46 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 2