Unknown Party v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents

Unknown Party v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents

Opinion

ORDER

INTRODUCTION

In February 2021, Plaintiff John Doe ("Doe") served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice on Defendant Arizona Board of Regents ("ABOR"). (Doc. 141-2 at 65-69.) The notice lists 19 examination topics. (Id.) Since then, the parties have engaged in extensive meet-and-confer efforts concerning ABOR's objections to some of the noticed topics. After those meet-and-confer efforts proved unsuccessful, the parties sought judicial intervention by filing a joint notice of discovery dispute (Doc. 133), which resulted in a telephonic hearing on May 6, 2021. (Doc. 137.) At the conclusion of that [*2]  hearing, the Court ordered the parties to continue meeting and conferring and authorized the submission of additional briefing if the parties remained at an impasse. (Id.) Unfortunately, the parties were unable to resolve their differences during the post-hearing conferral process. ABOR has now formalized its objections in a motion for protective order (Doc. 141) and Doe has filed a response (Doc. 142).

For the following reasons, ABOR's motion is granted in part and denied in part.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 26(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[a] party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending." Id. Such protective orders may be sought for a host of different reasons, including "protect[ing] a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." Id. "With respect to undue burden and expense, Rule 26(c) operates parallel to, and in tandem with, the proportionality limits now set forth in Rule 26(b)(1)." See 1 Gensler, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary, Rule 26, at 865 (2021).

Rule 26(c)(1) specifies that a protective order may be issued only "for good cause." The burden of establishing "good cause" falls onto the party seeking [*3]  the protective order. Father M. v. Various Tort Claimants (In re Roman Catholic Archbishop), 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) ("Under Rule 26, . . . . [t]he party opposing disclosure has the burden of proving 'good cause,' which requires a showing 'that specific prejudice or harm will result' if the protective order is not granted.") (citation omitted).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.