Paul Weldon v. Dyer et al

Filing 84

ORDER DENYING 83 Motion for Protective Order signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/10/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PAUL WELDON,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 1:13-cv-00540-LJO-SAB
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.
ECF NO. 83

14
15

JERRY DYER, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On October 9, 2014, Plaintiff Paul Weldon (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion requesting a

18 protective order prohibiting Defendants from conducting a videotaped deposition of Plaintiff.
19 (ECF No. 83.) Plaintiff informs the Court that Defendants noticed a deposition of Plaintiff to
20 take place on November 4, 2014. Plaintiff contends that the deposition is improper because the
21 deposition serves no purpose other than to harass Plaintiff.
22

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument.

While depositions may be

23 inconvenient, all litigants who file lawsuits in court must face the prospect of being deposed, just
24 as the Defendants in this action may be deposed by Plaintiff, if so desired. Plaintiff’s contention
25 that a deposition would have no purpose is without merit. Defendants are entitled to question
26 Plaintiff regarding the circumstances of his claims and the nature of his damages. Contrary to
27 Plaintiff’s arguments otherwise, Plaintiff’s damages are not “self-evident.” Plaintiff contends
28 that he feels uncomfortable at the prospect of being “put under the microscope” in a deposition.

1

1 Again, all plaintiffs who file lawsuits in court must deal with the possibility of being deposed.
2 The Court will not deny Defendants the opportunity to investigate the facts simply because
3 Plaintiff does not want to participate. Plaintiff must abide by the same rules and procedures that
4 Defendants must abide by according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including those
5 rules and procedures governing depositions and other discovery requests. Depositions in this
6 format are appropriate and often used by litigants in cases before this court.
Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order is DENIED.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 Dated:

October 10, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2