Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation v. State of California et al

Filing 124

ORDER denying 118 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 8/23/2011. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

CASE NO. 09cv1955 AJB (MDD)

PAUMA BAND OF LUISENO MISSION
INDIANS OF THE PAUMA & YUIMA
RESERVATION, a/k/a PAUMA LUISENO
BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, a/k/a
PAUMA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, a
federally recognized Indian Tribe,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER

14

[DOC. NO. 118]
Plaintiff,

15
16
17
18
19

vs.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA;
CALIFORNIA GAMBLING CONTROL
COMMISSION, an agency of the State of
California; and ARNOLD
SCHWARZENEGGER, as Governor of the
State of California;
Defendants.

20
21

On August 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed this Ex Parte Motion for a Protective Order. (Doc. No.
22
118). On August 17, 2011, this Court ordered Defendants to respond on or before August 22,
23
2011. (Doc. No. 122). On August 22, 2011, Defendants filed their Response and Opposition.
24
(Doc. No. 123).
25
Plaintiff asserts that it requires a protective order and other remedial relief from this Court
26
to prevent contact between an attorney who serves as the representative of the Governor of the
27
State of California with certain members of the Plaintiff’s Tribal Council. Defendants admit that
28
-1-

09cv1955 AJB (MDD)

1

the representative of the Governor is an attorney but that he is not acting as such – he is the party

2

representative of the Governor’s Office in this litigation and also serves as the representative of the

3

Governor’s Office in Tribal matters.

4

Having reviewed the moving papers and its supporting documentation, the Plaintiff’s

5

Motion is DENIED. Although Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) authorizes a court to issue a protective order

6

regarding discovery, there is no discovery dispute before the Court. In fact, Plaintiff’s Motion fails

7

even to allege that the Defendants are engaging in the challenged activity for the purpose of

8

gathering discovery. See U. S. v. Sierra Pac. Indians, 759 F.Supp.2d 1215, 1217 (E.D. Cal. 2011).

9

IT IS SO ORDERED:

10

DATED: August 23, 2011

11
12
13

Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
U.S. Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

09cv1955 AJB (MDD)