LeGrand
LeGrand v. Abbott Laboratories
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 CONDALISA LEGRAND, Case No. 22-cv-05815-TSH
Plaintiff,
DISCOVERY ORDER
v. Re: Dkt. No. 114 ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant.
12 Abbott has filed a motion to retain the confidentiality designation for certain excerpts from the deposition of Meaghan Bird and for certain portions of Exhibit 59 to that deposition. Plaintiff opposes the motion. In assessing a motion to retain confidentiality under a protective order, a court proceeds in two steps. “First, it must determine whether ‘particularized harm will result from disclosure of information to the public.’” In re Roman Cath. Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002)). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test,” rather, the moving party must “allege specific prejudice or harm.” Beckman…