Goolsby v. Cate et al

Filing 59

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 55 Motion for Protective Order signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 4/1/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

THOMAS GOOLSBY,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
CATE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11cv01773 LJO DLB PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
(Document 55)

16
17

Plaintiff Thomas Goolsby (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

18

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

19

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action

20
21
22

on October 25, 2011.
This action is proceeding on First Amendment retaliation claims and due process claims
against Defendants Holland, Steadman, Gutierrez, Noyce, Tyree, Gentry, Eubanks, Medrano and

23

Holman.
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants’ November 26, 2013, Motion to Dismiss is currently pending.
On March 25, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for a protective order to relieve them of
their obligation to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. The Court deems the matter suitable
for decision without an opposition pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
1

1
2
3
4

As Defendants point out, a motion to dismiss is pending, and therefore a discovery order
has not yet issued. This means that discovery has not opened and Plaintiff may not serve
discovery at this juncture without a prior showing that such discovery is necessary. According to
Defendants, Plaintiff has served written discovery without prior Court approval.

5

Accordingly, Defendants’ request for a protective order is GRANTED. Defendants are

6
7
8
9

relieved of their obligation to respond to Plaintiff’s January 23, 2014, discovery requests at this
time.1 If this action survives the pending motion to dismiss, the Court will open discovery by
formal order after an answer is filed.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
11

Dated:

12
13
14

April 1, 2014

/s/ Dennis

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

The motion states that Plaintiff served discovery on January 23, 2013. However, since service had not yet been
initiated at that time, the Court infers that this a typographical error, and the Court date is January 23, 2014.
2