Adams v. Kraft et al

Filing 101

ORDER by Judge Koh denying 93 Motion for Protective Order. (lhklc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2011)

Download PDF
Adams v. Kraft et al Doc. 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Case No.: 10-CV-00602-LHK ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION BERRY LYNN ADAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) DANIEL L. KRAFT, PHILLIP HAUCK, KIRK ) LINGENFELTER, K. P. BEST, J. I. STONE, ) CHIP BOCKMAN, R. CALLISON, and SCOTT ) SIPES, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Case No.: 10-CV-00602-LHK ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER On March 4, 2011, Plaintiff requested that this Court stay discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) until the Court ruled on Defendants' pending motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 93, at 1, or until after Defendants answer the complaint, id., at 3. Plaintiff argued that a stay is justified because the Court's anticipated ruling on Defendants' motion to dismiss may render it unnecessary for him to respond to Defendants' discovery requests. Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion on three grounds. Dkt. No. 97. First, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to properly follow the procedural rules for noticing and filing his motion. Second, Defendants argue that this issue was already resolved at the December 2, 2010 case management conference held before the undersigned judge. Third, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's motion fails to show any good cause for granting a protective order. Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 At the Case Management Conference, the Court stated that it disfavored any stay of discovery. The Court ordered that meaningful discovery take place in advance of the mediation to maximize the possibility of settlement. The Court set the mediation deadline for April 30, 2011, and the close of all discovery for July 31, 2011. Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action over a year ago, on February 10, 2010. The Court is disturbed that Plaintiff has not responded to discovery requests Defendants propounded in September 2010 and re-propounded in December 2010 and January 2011. The Court disfavors any extensions of the case deadlines and expects the parties to actively litigate this case to comply with the case schedule. Plaintiff's Request for Protective Order, which was not properly noticed and did not comply with the Civil Local Rules, is DENIED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 22, 2011 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 2 Case No.: 10-CV-00602-LHK ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

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?