Wheeler v. Alison et al
Filing
156
ORDER REGARDING Plaintiff's 155 Request for Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/25/2014. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
ERIC WHEELER,
12
13
14
15
16
17
Plaintiff,
vs.
ALISON, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:12cv00861 LJO DLB PC
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER
(Document 155)
18
19
Plaintiff Eric Wheeler (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California
20
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in
21
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
22
The action is currently in discovery. On July 10 and 18, 2014, the Court imposed a meet
23
24
25
26
27
and confer requirement on the parties and denied the pending motions to compel.
On August 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a Court order to stop Defendants’
counsel from receiving information from V. Hampson, the Senior Law Librarian at SATF.
According to Plaintiff, he allowed Ms. Hampson to work with Defendants’ counsel to obtain
28
1
1
2
3
4
5
documents that she was unable to locate. However, Plaintiff now believes that Ms. Hampson
advocating against Plaintiff during her communications with counsel.
Pursuant to Rule 26(c), the Court, for good cause, may grant a protective order to “protect
a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense...”
After reviewing Plaintiff’s motion and accompanying declaration, Plaintiff has not made a
6
7
8
9
sufficient showing that a protective order is either appropriate or necessary. Plaintiff seeks an
order prohibiting a party from discussing discovery issues with a non-party, though in this
situation, such relief is not warranted. Plaintiff has consented to allowing Ms. Hampson to
10
discuss discovery issues with Defendants’ counsel to assist Plaintiff in obtaining documents.
11
Other than Plaintiff’s unsupported conclusions, there is no evidence that Ms. Hampson is taking
12
an adverse position to Plaintiff. In fact, it appears that Ms. Hampson is helping Plaintiff with his
13
discovery requests.
14
15
16
17
18
If Plaintiff believes that he has not received documents to which he is entitled, whether
by virtue of Ms. Hampson’s actions or otherwise, he may address the issue first with Defendants’
counsel through meet and confer efforts. If such efforts are not successful, Plaintiff may file a
motion to compel as outlined in the Court’s July 10 and 18, 2014, orders.
The parties are reminded that if motions to compel are necessary after meet and
19
confer efforts, and the Court makes a finding that either party did not act in good faith in
20
21
22
attempting to resolve the discovery disputes, the Court will impose discovery sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
25
Dated:
/s/ Dennis
August 25, 2014
L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?