Estrada v. Macias et al

Filing 97

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 92 Motion for Protective Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 05/30/2017. (Martin-Gill, 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 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. TERESA MACIS, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:15-cv-01292-AWI-SAB (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER ]ECF No. 92] Plaintiff David Estrada is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for a protective order. Plaintiff requests a court order 20 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), (2), to prevent certain documents from being 21 destroyed, deleted, shredded or misplaced. 22 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part, “[a] party or any 23 person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action 24 is pending… The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from 25 annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense…” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). 26 Plaintiff’s request to seek a protective order to preserve certain evidence from destruction is 27 not sufficient under Rule 26(c). Plaintiff’s motion is essentially a request to preserve evidence. 28 Plaintiff is advised that “[f]ederal courts have the implied or inherent power to issue preservation 1 1 orders as part of their general authority ‘to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and 2 expeditious disposition of cases.’” American LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F.Supp.2d 1063, 1071 3 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (quoting Pueblo of Laguna v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 133, 135-36 (2004)). 4 Plaintiff’s motion is not premised on any showing that relevant and existing evidence is in danger of 5 being destroyed, but on general request to preserve any potential evidence. Plaintiff has not shown 6 that a preservation order is needed due to any actual risk that specific evidence will be lost or 7 destroyed during the pendency of this action. Generalized, unsupported concerns simply to not 8 suffice. American LegalNet, Inc., 673 F.Supp.2d at 1072. Furthermore, Defendants have a duty to 9 preserve evidence. “A party’s destruction of evidence qualifies as willful spoliation if the party has 10 some notice that the documents were potentially relevant to the litigation before they were destroyed.” 11 Leon v. IDX Systems Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 959 (9th Cir. 2006). Discovery in this action is ongoing 12 and the discovery deadline is currently set for August 25, 2017. To the extent there is a dispute over 13 whether certain evidence exists and/or should be disclosed, the proper procedural mechanism is to file 14 a motion to compel. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order is denied. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: 18 May 30, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?