Estrada v. Macias et al

Filing 135

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 134 Motion in Limine signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/21/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID ESTRADA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
TERESA MACIS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01292-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN
LIMINE
[ECF No. 134]

Plaintiff David Estrada is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On September 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion in limine pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

19
20

Procedure 26(c)(1)(D). Plaintiff’s motion is construed as a motion for a protective order under Rule

21

26(c).

22

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(D), the Court may for good cause, issue an

23

order “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or

24

expense, including one … “forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure

25

or discovery to certain matters….” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(D). To prevail on a motion for protective

26

order, the party seeking the protection has the burden to demonstrate “particular and specific

27

demonstration[s] of fact, as distinguished from conclusory statements….” See Munoz v. PHH Corp.,

28

No. 1:08-cv-00759-DAD-BAM, 2016 WL 590536 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2016).
1

Plaintiff merely contends that Defendants produced an audio digital versatile disc (dvd) and

1
2

transcript which does not identify a person at the beginning or conclusion and Plaintiff cannot

3

determine who is speaking on the audio recording. Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order

4

barring Defendants from using any portion of the recording or transcript at his deposition. Plaintiff’s

5

statement is not a “particular and specific demonstration” and is therefore insufficient to carry his

6

burden of establishing a specific prejudice. Accordingly, there is no basis to issue a protective order

7

against the use of the audio recording or the taking of Plaintiff’s deposition.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 21, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2