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)

Download PDF
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

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?