Blankenchip et al v. CitiMortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/19/2015 ORDERING 22 that defendant's application for an order shortening time is DENIED.(Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RANDY BLANKENCHIP, et al.,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-2309 WBS AC

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

CITIMORTGAGE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Pending before the court is defendant CitiMortgage, Inc.’s June 18, 2015, ex parte

18

application for an order shortening time, requesting that it’s “Motion for Protective Order” be

19

heard within 6 days, on June 24, 2015. ECF No. 22. According to CitiMortgage, plaintiffs have

20

noticed a deposition for July 15, 2015, which also requires defendant to produce documents

21

containing “proprietary” information. The application will be denied.

22

As defendant recognizes, the application for an order shortening time is governed by E.D.

23

Cal. R. 144(e), which requires “a satisfactory explanation” of why the order is needed. However,

24

defendant offers no explanation for why a “protective order” is needed here, since it only seeks to

25

avoid producing documents within its own custody and control. “Protective orders” are needed

26

when there is a risk that someone other than the moving party – here, the plaintiff, or a third party

27

– will disclose documents the moving party does not want disclosed. See, e.g., Kaur v. City of

28

Lodi, 2014 WL 3956707 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (defendant seeks protective order to prevent disclosure
1

1

by third party); American States Ins. Co. v. Insurance Co. for State of Pennsylvania, 2015 WL

2

224769 at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (plaintiff seeks protective order to limit disclosure by defendant).

3

Where, as here, defendant simply objects the production of documents within its own custody and

4

control, it is free to object under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing discovery

5

requests. There is simply no need for an emergency motion in court.1

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s application for an order

7

shortening time (ECF No. 22), is DENIED.

8

DATED: June 19, 2015

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

In addition, the motion does not explain why defendant waited until last week to seek its
“protective order,” even though the notice of deposition was served on April 20, 2015, two
months ago. See ECF No. 21-1, Exh. A, at 14. Defendant’s apparent failure to act in a timely
manner is not a satisfactory explanation of its need, now, for an emergency order.
2