Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Phillips v. General Motors Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureProtective OrdersDiscoveryAccess to Judicial RecordsRule 26(c)good causeprotective orderdiscovery

Facts

In the underlying product-liability suit, the parties stipulated before discovery to a share protective order that allowed covered information to be shared with similar litigants but not with the public. The magistrate judge later ordered GM to produce the total number and aggregate dollar amount of prior settlements involving C/K pickup truck fuel-fed fire claims, and GM produced that information under seal pursuant to the existing protective order, subject to further review by the district judge. Plaintiffs attached the sealed settlement information as Exhibit 8 to a discovery-sanctions motion, but the case settled before the court ruled on that motion. After dismissal, the Los Angeles Times intervened and sought to unseal Exhibit 8, and the district court ordered release of the information.

Issue

Did the district court apply the correct legal standard in deciding that a protective order was not appropriate for GM's confidential settlement information and in concluding that the Los Angeles Times had a common law right of access to Exhibit 8? Also, could GM challenge the magistrate judge's original discovery order on appeal?

Rule

Under Rule 26(c), a district court may issue any order justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, and protection is not limited to trade secrets or confidential commercial information. The party seeking protection must show specific prejudice or harm through a particularized showing of good cause, after which the court balances the private and public interests. When a sealed discovery document is attached to a nondispositive motion, the usual strong presumption of public access is rebutted; if a valid protective order remains in place, the party seeking disclosure must present sufficiently compelling reasons for release.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a products case in Phoenix, a magistrate judge ordered Red Mesa Appliances to produce aggregate amounts it had paid in prior confidential customer settlements, subject to an existing protective order. Red Mesa did not file objections with the district judge within 10 days, and after final judgment it argues on appeal that the magistrate judge lacked authority to compel the discovery at all.

How should the appellate court treat Red Mesa's challenge to the magistrate judge's discovery order?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, an aggrieved party must object to a magistrate judge's nondispositive order within the time set by Rule 72(a), and failure to do so prevents the party from assigning that order as error on appeal. The confidentiality of the material and the existence of a protective order do not avoid waiver.