Shettles Jr. v. ABT Limousine Service, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-05489
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Shettles Jr. v. ABT Limousine, Judge Vyskocil denied defendants’ protective-order request without prejudice because they showed no specific need.
The defendants’ proposed protective order was denied, leaving them able to renew the request if they make the required showing of good cause. The order concerns the parties’ discovery dispute and does not resolve the underlying claims.
What happened
In Shettles Jr. v. ABT Limousine Service, Inc., the parties disputed whether the court should enter a protective order for discovery in the Fair Labor Standards Act case. The plaintiffs opposed the order as unnecessary, while the defendants requested either the order or a conference about it.
The court explained that a party seeking a protective order must show a specific and serious harm that disclosure would cause. The defendants relied on general statements that protective orders are common in these cases and that some documents might contain sensitive information, but they did not identify specific documents or information requiring protection.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied the defendants’ request for a protective order or a conference without prejudice to renewal if they make a proper showing of good cause.
The detailed version
- Shettles Jr. v. ABT Limousine Service, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-05489
- Vyskocil
- Feb. 5, 2021
Background
The case is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court received a letter concerning the parties’ disagreement over a proposed protective order. The plaintiffs opposed entering the order, arguing that it was unnecessary. The defendants asked the court to hold a conference about the dispute and argued that initial discovery protocols for Fair Labor Standards Act cases supported using an interim protective order.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), a court may issue a protective order for good cause to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. The party requesting protection has the burden of showing good cause. The court stated that good cause requires a showing that disclosure would cause a clearly defined, specific, and serious injury.
The court also explained that the initial discovery protocols relied on by the defendants are not binding on the court and do not replace Rule 26’s requirements.
Court’s reasoning
The defendants did not identify any specific documents or information that the proposed order would cover. Their stated reasons were that protective orders are routinely approved in Fair Labor Standards Act cases and that an interim order would allow efficient document exchange despite potentially sensitive information. The defendants acknowledged that the proposed order was a catch-all measure in case confidential information was not redacted.
The court found these general and speculative statements insufficient to show good cause. Because the defendants had not identified a specific injury or particular need for protection, they had not met their burden under Rule 26.
Disposition
The court denied the defendants’ request for entry of a protective order or for a conference on the issue, without prejudice to renewal upon a proper showing of good cause. The order did not decide the underlying Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.