Northern Hospitality Group, Inc. et al v. Poynter

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
NORTHERN HOSPITALITY GROUP,
INC., an Alaska corporation, d/b/a 49th
State Brewing Company; and DENALI
VISIONS 3000 CORPORATION, an
Alaska corporation, d/b/a 49th State
Brewing Company,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DON POYNTER,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00012-JMK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE
ORDER
At Docket 28, Plaintiffs Northern Hospitality Group, Inc., and Denali
Visions 3000 Corporation filed an Unopposed Motion for a Protective Order. 	The Court
later learned that Plaintiffs’ Motion was opposed by Defendant Don Poynter and directed
the parties to meet and confer to reach an agreement regarding a protective order.1 If an
agreement could not be reached, the Court directed Defendant to file objections to
Plaintiffs’ proposed protective order by November 11, 2022.2
1 Docket 32.
2 Id.
Case 3:22-cv-00012-JMK Document 39 Filed 11/28/22 Page 1 of 2

Northern Hospitality Group, Inc. et al v. Poynter 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00012-JMK
Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Confidentiality Order 	Page 2
Defendant objects to Plaintiffs’ proposed protective order on the grounds that
“such confidentiality solely benefits the plaintiff and provides no benefit to defendant who
has nothing to hide or keep protected from public record.”3 Plaintiffs then moved for entry
of a confidentiality order, arguing that their proposed confidentiality order “benefits both
parties 	if 	either 	party 	believes 	that 	documents 	or 	testimony 	should 	be 	designated
‘confidential’” under the confidentiality order.4 The Court agrees with Plaintiffs and finds
that their proposed confidentiality order benefits both parties. Further, the Court finds that
good cause exists for entry of a confidentiality order where, as here, the litigation likely
will entail the exchanging of confidential or proprietary business information.5
Plaintiffs are directed to submit a Microsoft Word version of the proposed
confidentiality order, filed at Docket 37-1, to this Court’s proposed orders inbox for
separate docketing.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of November, 2022, at Anchorage,
Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
3 Docket 36 at 1–2.
4 Docket 37 at 2.
5 See Baker v. Transunion L.L.C., No. CV-06-2927-PCT-NVW, 2008 WL 544826, at *3
(D. Ariz. Feb. 26, 2008), aff’d sub nom. Baker v. Transunion LLC, 316 F. App’x 594 (9th Cir.
2009) (“Parties surrender their private information in the course of litigation only because they
trust in the good faith of their adversaries to comply with the court’s order for the protection of
their mutual privacy, confidentiality, and business information.”).
Case 3:22-cv-00012-JMK Document 39 Filed 11/28/22 Page 2 of 2