Millner v. Dileo et al
Filing
59
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT Prejudice Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order 58 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/11/2019. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JAMES W. MILLNER,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
DR. DILEO, et al.,
15
Case No. 1:17-cv-00507-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
(ECF No. 58)
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff James W. Millner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action
17
18
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Opposition: In Part to Defendant’s Notice of
20
Deposition [on] July 15, 2019[,]” filed on July 8, 2019. (ECF No. 58.) The Court interprets
21
Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
22
26(c).
23
Rule 26(c) states, in relevant part, that “[a] party … from whom discovery is sought may
24
move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending” and “[t]he court may, for good
25
cause, issue an order to protect a party … from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
26
burden or expense[.]” “For good cause to exist, the party seeking protection bears the burden of
27
showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Phillips v. GMC,
28
307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002).
1
1
Here, Plaintiff states that, in the notice of his July 15, 2019 deposition, Defendants have
2
said that, if Plaintiff’s deposition is not completed on July 15, 2019, the deposition will be
3
continued, at the option of the noticing party, either from day to day or to be continued until a date
4
certain. Plaintiff argues that this language in the deposition notice means that Defendants can take
5
“until infinity is over to complete his deposition” in violation of the Court’s June 4, 2019 order that
6
all discovery must be completed by July 19, 2019.
7
However, since Plaintiff has not presented the Court with any evidence that Plaintiff’s
8
deposition will not be completed on or before July 19, 2019, Plaintiff’s claim of prejudice or harm
9
is speculative. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing specific
10
prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for
11
a protective order, (ECF No. 58), is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice to being renewed at the
12
deposition if the issue actually arises and good cause for continued hearing is not shown by the
13
Defendants. In making its ruling, the Court assumes that the deposition with start promptly and/or
14
without unreasonable delay by either party. Good cause may be shown if unreasonable delay occurs
15
either before or during the deposition by either side.
16
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 11, 2019
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?