Ortiz v. Circle K Stores 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
Emma Cuadros Ortiz,
Plaintiff,
v.
Circle K Stores Incorporated, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-02014-PHX-JAT
ORDER
Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation for entry of a protective order.
(Doc. 24). In the stipulation, the parties offer no cause for the need for a protective order.
(Id.). In the proposed protective order, they define what they will mark as confidential as:
“Confidential Material means non-public information, including but not limited to
personnel records, medical or psychiatric information, private customer data, proprietary
business information, trade secrets, or other information protected by statute or recognized
privacy interests, the disclosure of which would cause harm or invade legitimate privacy
interests.” (Doc 24-1 at 3).
Generally, global protective orders are not appropriate. See AGA Shareholders, LLC
v. CSK Auto, Inc., 2007 WL 4225450, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2007). Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 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 (quoting
Case 2:25-cv-02014-JAT Document 25 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 3

- 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
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. (quoting San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187
F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999)). Thus, “[t]he burden is on the party 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) (quotation omitted).
A permissible subcategory of global protective orders is umbrella or blanket
protective orders. Blanket protective orders delay the requirement to show good cause with
respect to individual documents until the designation of that document as confidential is
challenged or when a party attempts to file it under seal. Rocky Mountain Bank v. Google,
Inc., 428 Fed. App’x 690, 691 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted) (explaining that “where
[a] blanket protective order [is] issued, an actual showing of good cause must be made if
another seeks access to the document.”); Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
1172, 1183 (9th Cir. 2006) (“we have held that … reliance on a blanket protective order is
unreasonable and is not a ‘compelling reason’ that rebuts the presumption of access” once
a document is filed in the record).
Here, the parties’ proposed protective order is so broad that it is an impermissible
global protective order. For example, it seeks to protect documents, “including but not
limited to”. This language does not advise the Court or the public of the scope of the
documents that will be marked as confidential. It further lists information that the Court
has no reason to believe will be at issue in this case like “private customer data” or
“personnel records” of third parties. Thus, the breadth of the proposed protective order
does not fall within Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26’s limited protections and good
cause has not been shown to protect any categories of information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1),
(G) (the district court may, upon a showing of good cause, “issue an order to protect a party
or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,”
Case 2:25-cv-02014-JAT Document 25 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
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
including by “requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or
commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specific way.”).
As a result of the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that the stipulation for entry of a protective order (Doc. 24) is
denied without prejudice.
Dated this 9th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-02014-JAT Document 25 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 3