Cruz v. Villarneal et al

Filing 20

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying 9 Motion for Protective Order; denying 16 Motion for Protective Order; denying 19 Motion for Protective Order. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALEJANDRO REYES CRUZ,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.

9
10

VICTOR VILLARNEAL, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 23-cv-00962-CRB

12

Plaintiff Alejandro Reyes Cruz (“Cruz”), representing himself pro se, brings three

13

motions for a protective order in this case. See dkts. 9, 16, 19.1 The first and third motion

14

appear to be similar protective orders drafted by Cruz, while the second motion appears to

15

be the district’s model protective order, which only Cruz has signed. See id.

16

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) controls whether and when the imposition of

17

a protective order is appropriate. This rule states that “[t]he court may, for good cause,

18

issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or

19

undue burden or expense” with several listed examples, each having to do with discovery

20

or exchange of information between parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).

21

Cruz’s request for a protective order in this case is premature. No defendant has

22

appeared; therefore, no exchange of information that may be protected by a protective

23

order can take place. Cruz has not demonstrated good cause for a protective order at such

24

an early stage.2

25
26
27
28

1

Cruz is advised against filing multiple duplicative motions seeking the same relief. Successive,
redundant filings clog up the Court’s docket and delay prompt resolution of motions.
2
Cruz’s drafted protective order indicates that he seeks a preemptive protective order because he
fears retaliation from law enforcement. See dkts. 16, 19. If Cruz can set forth specific facts
demonstrating good cause underlying this concern, he may refile a motion for a protective order
after defendants have appeared and the parties begin exchanging sensitive information. Any