DONNA M. RYU United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [DOCKET NO. 138] WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Before the court is a joint motion for a protective order filed by Defendants RPX Corporation, HTC Corporation, and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. [Docket No. 138.] The court has reviewed the motion, and determines that it is premature. "The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense," including by limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). However, "[a] party asserting good cause [for a protective order] bears the burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted." Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted, emphasis added). Furthermore, a party asserting the joint defense privilege to prevent discovery of a communication bears the burden of showing that "(1) the communication is made by separate parties in the course of a matter of common [legal] interest; (2) the communication is designed to further that effort; and (3) the privilege has not been waived." Nidec Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan, 249 F.R.D. 575, 578 (N.D. Cal. 2007). The court cannot apply this fact-specific analysis here, where no discovery has been conducted and the case is stayed (with no discovery permitted) until at least December 12, 2014. See Docket Nos. 133, 137, 150. Accordingly, the motion for protective order is denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 1, 2014
/s/_________
DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge