Edwards v. Grannis et al

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 07/27/11 ordering that plaintiff's opposition is construed as a motion for protective order and so construed 24 is denied. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DAVID EDWARDS,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. CIV S-10-0298 DAD P

vs.
N. GRANNIS, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

17

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 12, 2011, plaintiff filed a document with the court

18

styled “Opposition to Defendants’ Notice of Taking Deposition of Plaintiff David Edwards.” By

19

that document, plaintiff seeks either an order removing the California Attorney General as

20

counsel for the defendant so that the State will not have to pay for plaintiff’s deposition, or an

21

order “denying” the deposition as unnecessary. The court construes this document as a motion

22

for a protective order protecting plaintiff from his deposition. According to plaintiff’s motion,

23

his deposition was noticed for July 15, 2011. Therefore, it appears that his motion is now moot.

24

In any event, plaintiff’s motion contains no grounds that would warrant issuance of a protective

25

order barring plaintiff’s deposition or any of the other relief plaintiff seeks.

26

/////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 12, 2011 opposition

2

is construed as a motion for a protective order and, so construed, is denied.

3

DATED: July 27, 2011.

4
5
6
7
8
9

DAD:12
edwa0298.po

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2