Diaz v. Fox et al

Filing 49

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 02/28/17 denying 47 Motion for protective order. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MIGUEL ENRIQUE DIAZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-2705 JAM CKD P

v.

ORDER

R. FOX, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights claim, has filed a motion for a

18

protective order. (ECF No. 47.) Specifically, he seeks an order prohibiting his deposition and

19

excusing him from producing documents which he contends are privileged.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a court may, “for good cause shown ...

20
21

make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance,

22

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The moving

23

party must demonstrate “a particular and specific need for the protective order, as opposed to

24

making stereotyped or conclusory statements.” Gray, 133 F.R.D. at 40. Whether to grant a

25

protective order lies within the discretion of the court. See Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of America,

26

842 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, plaintiff’s argument is comprised of conclusory

27

statements and does not show good cause for the protective order he seeks.

28

////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for protective order (ECF

2

No. 47) is denied.

3

Dated: February 28, 2017

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4
5
6
7
8

2 / diaz2705.po

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2