Chandler v. The United States

Filing 24

Order by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying 23 Motion for Protective Order.(kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/19/2013: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (sisS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 United States District Court Northern District of California 3 4 5 6 JO ANNE CHANDLER., Plaintiff, 7 v. 8 9 Case No.: CV 12-01795 YGR (KAW) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (Dkt. No. 23) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 On August 8, 2012, this matter was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Kandis A. 13 Westmore for discovery purposes. On February 13, 2013, Plaintiff Jo Ann Chandler filed a 14 “Motion by Plaintiff for Clarification of Documents Requested in Discovery,” which this Court 15 construes as a motion for protective order to limit the scope of discovery. (Dkt. No. 23.) Plaintiff is pro se, so the Court will hold Ms. Chandler’s moving papers to a less stringent 16 17 standard than those filed by lawyers. Plaintiff’s motion, however, is not ripe for adjudication at 18 this time, because there is no indication that she has attempted to resolve this dispute informally 19 with opposing counsel, as required by Civil Local Rule 37-1(a), prior to seeking court 20 intervention. Plaintiff is directed to Chapter 17 of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District 21 of California’s Pro Se Handbook (available at:, which 22 addresses those steps that a party must take before seeking court intervention to resolve discovery 23 disputes. 24 Plaintiff is reminded that discovery is a part of civil litigation, and, by its very nature, is 25 burdensome. That fact alone does not entitle a party to relief from her obligation to comply with 26 valid requests for discovery.1 Should Plaintiff have difficulty producing her discovery responses 27 28 1 Generally, twenty (20) boxes of documents do not rise to the level of being unduly burdensome, such that the Court would grant a protective order. 1 by the current date they are due, she should contact opposing counsel and request an extension. 2 Part of this “meet and confer” effort may also include identifying what types of documents the 3 Government is seeking through discovery, as well as narrowing the scope of the Government’s 4 requests. 5 In light of Plaintiff’s failure to attest that she has attempted to meet and confer with 6 opposing counsel in good faith prior to filing this motion, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED without 7 prejudice, such that she may refile a motion for protective order should her attempts to meet and 8 confer with opposing counsel be unsuccessful. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 DATE: February 19, 2013 ___________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge 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?