Newman et al v. San Joaquin Delta Community College District et al

Filing 113

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/7/2011 DENYING 100 Motion for Protective Order and Monetary Sanctions. Neither party shall be awarded reasonable expenses incurred in bringing, or defending against, the motion. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SHIRLEY A. NEWMAN and
ANTHONY C. BUTLER,

11
Plaintiffs,

No. 2:09-cv-03441 WBS KJN

12
v.
13
14

SAN JOAQUIN DELTA COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT, a public entity;
DANIELE RULEY, JAMES WOOD,

15
Defendants.
16

ORDER
/

17

Presently before the court is defendant San Joaquin Delta Community College

18

District’s (“District”) motion for a protective order and monetary sanctions brought pursuant to

19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1).1 (Mot. for Prot. Order, Dkt. No. 100.) The District

20

seeks an order preventing plaintiffs from discovering records from a nonparty, Lodi Unified

21

School District, regarding an incident that occurred on or around April 20, 2011, wherein San

22

Joaquin Delta College Police officers allegedly used a Taser device on a student from Middle

23

College High School. The parties filed a timely Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement

24

pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 251. (Joint Statement, Dkt. No. 110.)

25
1

26

This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California
Local Rule 302(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

1

The court heard this matter on its law and motion calendar on July 7, 2011.

2

Attorney J. Anthony Abbott appeared on behalf of the District. Attorney Stephen M. Ryals

3

appeared on behalf of plaintiffs. The undersigned has fully considered the parties’ submissions,

4

oral arguments, and appropriate portions of the record. For the reasons stated on the record

5

during the hearing, even assuming that the District has standing to seek a protective order on

6

Lodi Unified School District’s behalf, such a protective order is not presently warranted under

7

the applicable legal standards. Additionally, as explained at the hearing, the undersigned does

8

not award any party reasonable expenses incurred in bringing, or defending against, this motion.

9

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(3), 37(a)(5).

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1.

12

Defendant San Joaquin Delta Community College District’s motion for a

protective order and monetary sanctions (Dkt. No. 100) is denied.

13

2.

14

or defending against, the motion.

15
16

Neither party shall be awarded reasonable expenses incurred in bringing,

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 7, 2011

17
18
19

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2