Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)

Citation: Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)
Parent Document: Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2014-01-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2650742/nativi-v-deutsche-bank-national... ↗

Full Text

2,013 chars

66
158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98-99.) In this case, however, the parties were not able to reach an
agreement.
       Where a party must resort to the courts, "the burden is on the party seeking the
protective order to show good cause for whatever order is sought. [Citation.]" (Fairmont
Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) Even assuming California trial
courts may in appropriate circumstances issue an umbrella protective order that allows
the parties to designate as confidential documents produced in discovery (but see Stadish
v. Superior Court, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 1144 [trial court impermissibly "delegated
to the parties the responsibility of determining which items of discovery contained trade
secrets"]) and specifies the permissible use of those designated documents, the
declaration submitted in support of AMHSI's motion for such a protective order was
entirely conclusory and lacked any factual specificity. (See People v. Superior Court
(1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 276, 281-282 [declaration containing mere conclusions
insufficient to establish good cause]; cf. In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in
Oregon (9th Cir. 2011) 661 F.3d 417, 424 [" '[b]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated
by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.'
[Citations.]"]; cf. also Fed. Rules of Court, rule 26(c) [". . . The court may, for good
cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: . . . [¶]
(G) requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or
commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way . . . ."].)
AHMSI made no factual showing that (1) the documents that it had been ordered to
produce contained confidential commercial information or information in which it had
any protectable interest or (2) dissemination of the documents to the public would result
in injury.

Other Sections in This Document (81)

Full Text