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
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?