Tanner v. Cowell et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IFG's Motion for a Protective Order (Dkt. 51 ) is GRANTED. The depositions currently for October 11, 2019, and October 14, 2019 are vacated. Tanner and Stromberg will work together to schedule anydepositions. Failure to do so may result in sanctions. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (alw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
Case No. 2:18-cv-00456-DCN
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME DIRECTOR ED SCHRIEVER,
VIRGIL MOORE, LUCAS SWANSON,
JOSH STANLEY, BRIAN JOHNSON;
and WILLIE COWELL
Pending before the Court is Defendant Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Director Virgil Moore, Lucas Swanson, Josh Stanley, and Brian Johnson’s (“IFG”) Motion
for Protective Order. Dkt. 51. Having reviewed the record and briefs, the Court finds that
the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented.1 Accordingly, in the interest of
avoiding further delay, and because the Court finds that the decisional process would not
The Court issues this order without a response from Tanner. Based on the facts presented herein, there is
no argument that Tanner can make that would alter the Court’s decision.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER –1
be significantly aided by oral argument, the Court will decide the Motion without oral
argument. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1)(B).
In September of 2019, Plaintiff Steve Tanner began unilaterally setting and vacating
depositions.2 The notice provided for the depositions was short—11 days. Bentley
Stromberg, counsel for IFG, happened to be available for the depositions and did not object.
However, Tanner vacated the depositions 5 days before they were set to take place.
On October 1, 2019, Tanner again set depositions on short notice—10 days and 13
days—and again did so unilaterally. This time, Stromberg was unavailable for those dates.
Stromberg emailed Tanner and the two began discussing alternative dates for depositions
when Stromberg would be available. It appeared that the two were working things out when
suddenly, late in the evening on October 8, 2019, Tanner informed Stromberg that the
depositions were going to go forward, despite previous discussions and Stromberg’s
Stromberg promptly filed this Motion for a Protective Order, seeking to vacate the
currently scheduled depositions.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
“[P]re-trial discovery is ordinarily ‘accorded a broad and liberal treatment,’”
because “wide access to relevant facts serves the integrity and fairness of the judicial
process by promoting the search for the truth.” Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir.
All facts are taken from IFG’s motion as it is the only briefing before the Court.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER –2
1993) (quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947)). “Under Rule 26, however,
‘[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.’” In re Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(c)(1)). A court has broad discretion in deciding whether or not to grant a protective
order. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th
The Court is required “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of
every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. In the District of Idaho, parties must work
together when it comes to setting depositions. The Court does not approve of parties
stooping to “hard ball” tactics like unilaterally setting depositions. While Tanner certainly
might be doing his best to pursue his claims pro se, this does not mean he is immune from
The Court requires the parties to work together and set depositions for mutually
agreeable times. If the parties cannot mutually agree, either party may motion the Court for
assistance. Depending on the facts and circumstances surrounding such a motion, the Court
may impose sanctions on the disruptive party.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. IFG’s Motion for a Protective Order (Dkt. 51) is GRANTED. The
depositions currently for October 11, 2019, and October 14, 2019 are
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER –3
vacated. Tanner and Stromberg will work together to schedule any
depositions. Failure to do so may result in sanctions.
DATED: October 10, 2019
David C. Nye
Chief U.S. District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER –4
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?