A Motion for Protective Order is a legal request made by a party involved in a lawsuit. This request seeks protection from the court against invasive, burdensome, or harassing discovery requests or practices. The primary purpose of a protective order is to safeguard a party or witness from unreasonable demands. These demands can include excessive interrogatories, document production, or depositions that may lead to annoyance, embarrassment, or unnecessary expenses.
By granting a protective order, the court ensures a fair and efficient legal process, while balancing the rights and interests of all parties involved in the case.
For a more comprehensive understanding, we have provided resources that include links to each state's court authorities' legal motions. These resources not only help you comprehend the unique requirements and processes for obtaining a Motion for Protective Order in your respective state but also provide real-life examples and citations of law for each state. This practical approach ensures that you gain a comprehensive understanding of the Motion for Protective Order process, backed by actual case studies and legal references.
“A party claiming a privilege to refuse to answer interrogatories [or respond to other discovery requests] may obtain a protective order under Rule 26(c), which would protect the party from discovery or from inquiry into certain matters....” (Dunkin v. Citizens Bank of Jonesboro (1987) 291 Ark. 588…)
“Rule 26(c)(2) governs protective orders that may restrict disclosure by a party or person of information produced in the discovery process to a nonparty.” (See Zenith Electronics Corp. v. Ballinger (2009) 220 Ariz. 257…)
“When an inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents, tangible things, places, or electronically stored information has been demanded, the party to whom the demand has been directed, and any other party or affected person, may promptly move for a protective order.” (Code of Civ. Proc. …)
“Customarily, in a motion for protective order, the moving party seeks to shield from discovery information that the opposing party has requested or will request.” (See Bond v. Dist. Court (1984) 682 P.2d 33…)
Practice Book 221 governs the scope of discovery and provides for protective orders. It states, that “[u]pon motion by a party from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause…
“Superior Court Civil Rule 26(c) authorizes the trial court to grant a protective order ‘for good cause shown.‘ ‘To prevent abuse of the discovery process, the order may impose specific terms and conditions for discovery and may require that confidential information be disclosed in a certain manner, or not be disclosed at all.’” (Roberts-Douglas v. Meares (1992) 624 A.2d 405…)
It is well settled that Under Rule 26(b)(1)(iii), “the court may, among other reasons, limit discovery that is "unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, limitations on the parties' resources, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. Ultimately, the application of this limitation rests in the sound discretion of this court.” (See Sokol Holdings v. Dorsey Whitney, C.A. No. 3874-VCS, at *24 (Del. Ch. Aug. 5, 2009).)
“A trial court possesses broad discretion in overseeing discovery, and protecting the parties that come before it.” (Bush v. Schiavo (2004)866 So. 2d 136, at 138 [quoting Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. (1993) 625 So. 2d 106, 107 [approved, (1994) 641 So. 2d 855, 857.]) Such protection is afforded under rule…
“[C]ourts applying Georgia law should rely on the overarching dictates of OCGA § 9-11-26 (c) in determining whether to grant a protective order.” (Gen. Motors v. Buchanan, No. S21G1147, at *24-26 [Ga. June 1, 2022].)
"Indeed, Rule 26 of the Idaho rules, like its federal analogue, was designed to promote candor and fairness in the pre-trial discovery process." (See id; Radmer v. Ford Motor Co. (1991) 120 Idaho 86, 89, 813 P.2d 897…)
“Supreme Court Rule 201(c) (166 Ill. 2d R. 201(c)) gives trial courts the authority to enter protective orders. The rule is a part of a comprehensive scheme for discovery.” (Hall v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (2006) 368 Ill. App. 3d 820…)
“Under Trial Rule 26(C), the burden is initially on the party seeking the protective order to show ‘good cause’ why such an order is required to protect it from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense[.]" (See Lee v. Lee Urbahns Co. (2007) 876 N.E.2d 361…)
“Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (c), as amended, 423 Mass. 1401 [1996], requires that a party seeking a protective order make a showing of…”
Michigan follows a policy of open and broad discovery.” (Thomas M. Cooley Law Sch. v. Doe 1 (2013) 300 Mich.App. 245, 260.) “Parties are permitted discovery regarding ‘any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending case.’” (Augustine v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2011) 292 Mich.App. 408…)
“Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 26.02(a) provides that [p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to a claim or defense of any party." (See Underdahl v. Commissioner of Public Safety (2007) 735 N.W.2d 706…)
“Rule 56.01(c) states: Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the court may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense[.]” (See Morphis v. Bass Pro Grp., LLC, No. SD34435, at *4 (Mo. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2017).)
“A Rule 26(c) protective order is discretionary and is reviewable only for abuse of that discretion." (See Patterson v. Sweatt (2001)146 N.C. App. 351, 356, 553 S.E.2d 404…)
“Under Rule 26(c), N.D.R.Civ.P., the trial court may issue a protective order prohibiting discovery by deposition for good cause shown when "justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” (See Smith v. State, (1986) 389 N.W.2d 808…)
“Rule 4:10-3 provides the means by which a person, including a party's attorney who objects to a deposition, can obtain protection against improper intrusion into the adversarial process by an improvidently issued…”
Indeed, New Mexico courts have repeatedly recognize that, “[t]he pretrial discovery rules, including Rule 26, intend a liberal pretrial discovery, to enable the parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the facts before trial.” (Marchiondo v. Brown (1982) 98 N.M. 394…)
Importantly, “[a]lthough NRCP 26(c), like its federal counterpart, applies to all forms of discovery (including written discovery), the Nevada Supreme Court has defined what constitutes good cause under the rule only in the context of depositions.” (Venetian Casino Resort, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (2020) 467 P.3d 1, 6 n.10 citing Okada v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (2015) 131 Nev. 834 …)
New York courts routinely grant protective orders when control of discovery is necessary, such as if (1) the demand for disclosure was palpably improper; (2) the party seeking disclosure failed to show any relevancy of the matter sought to the case at bar…
“It is axiomatic that documents containing privileged information or those constituting trade secrets are exempt from disclosure. (Gibson-Myers v. Pearce, C.A. No. 19358, at *1 [Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 27, 1999] citing State ex rel. The Plain Dealer v. Ohio Dept. of Ins. (1997) 80 Ohio St.3d 513…)
“The federal rules of Civil Procedure [28 U.S.C.A. subsection 26(c)] specifically provide for protective orders granted in the sound discretion of the trial court upon a showing of good cause, limiting the scope of discovery or the manner in which it is conducted.” (See Graham v. District Ct., Seventh J.D. (1976) Okl. Cty, 548 P.2d 1010…)
“The Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure provide that any party who wishes to impose conditions on discovery may do so by means of a motion for a protective order under ORCP 36.” (See Lindell v. Kalugin (2013) 353 Or. 338…)
Further, “[t]he law pertaining to discovery in civil actions appears at Pa.R.C.P. 4001 et seq. In general, ‘a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action ... including the existence, description, nature, content, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things....’” (Hutchison v. Luddy (1992) 414 Pa. Super. 138…)
“Rule 26(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure states that parties may obtain discovery [of] any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” (See Podedworny v. Am. Insulated Wire Corp., C.A. No. PC 11-5268, at *1 (R.I. Super. Dec. 16, 2014).)
Rule 166b(5) provides in part: “On a motion specifying the grounds and made by any person against or from whom discovery is sought under these rules, the court may make any order in the interest of justice necessary to protect the movant from…”
However, “Rule 26(c) provides that, upon good cause shown, a judge may make an order to protect a party from "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” (See Schmitt v. Lalancette (2003) 175 Vt. 284…)
“Decisions either denying or granting sanctions for discovery abuse are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion.” (See Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp. (1993) 122 Wash.2d 299, 338, 858 P.2d 1054; Weiss v. Lonnquist (2013) 293 P.3d 1264…)
“If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery.” (See Sands v. Whitnall Sch. Dist (2008) 312 Wis. 2d 1…)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
