Johnson, Jr. v. Driven Brands, Inc., et al, No. 2:2021cv02144 - Document 18 (W.D. Ark. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 17 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes III on January 21, 2022. (jlm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Johnson, Jr. v. Driven Brands, Inc., et al Doc. 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION HARVIE JOHNSON, JR., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PLAINTIFF No. 2:21-CV-02144 DRIVEN BRANDS, INC., and DRIVEN BRANDS SHARED SERVICES, LLC DEFENDANTS OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is a joint motion (Doc. 17) for a protective order and proposed protective order (Doc. 17-1). The motion seeks entry of an order protecting private and sensitive personnel documents and information, trade secrets, and other confidential commercial information. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will GRANT the motion and enter the protective order proposed by the parties, with some amendment. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G) provides that “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” by “requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way.” “The burden is therefore upon the movant to show the necessity of its issuance, which contemplates ‘a particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.’” Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Mfg. Co., 481 F.2d 1204, 1212 (8th Cir. 1973) (citing Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2035 at 264-65). The parties have shown good cause for the entry of a protective order as to documents containing trade secrets or other confidential commercial information. Trade secrets and confidential commercial information fall squarely within the ambit of Rule 26(c). “Where 1 Dockets.Justia.com discovery of confidential commercial information is involved, the court must ‘balance the risk of disclosure to competitors against the risk that a protective order will impair prosecution or defense of the claims.’” Bussing v. COR Clearing, LLC, No. 12CV238, 2015 WL 4077993, at *2 (D. Neb. July 6, 2015) (quoting Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech (SSPF) Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552, 555 (C.D. Cal. 2007)). Here, entry of a protective order will neither impair prosecution nor the defense of the claims as the parties are in agreement as to the proposed protective order. The Court finds that good cause has been shown for the entry of a protective order regarding documents containing trade secrets or other confidential commercial information. The parties’ proposed protective order also includes sensitive personnel documents and information, which encompasses “employee compensation information, tax information, supervisory notes, addresses, social security numbers, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and discipline reports” (Doc. 17-1, p. 2, ¶ 1). The Court finds good cause exists for an entry of a protecting order encompassing sensitive personnel documents and information. The Court will separately enter a revised protective order. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 17) for a protective order is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of January, 2022. /s/P. K. Holmes, III P.K. HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
