Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 71

MOTION for Protective Order by Plaintiff Michael E. Spreadbury. Motions referred to Jeremiah C. Lynch. (APP, )

Download PDF
Michael E. Spreadbury 700 S. 4th Street FILED Hamilton, MT 59840 JUL 27 2011 Telephone: (406) 363-3877 :ArR/CK t.. tAt", i5EPUTY-;::-";~- mspread@hotmail.com " ,,"' "\ Pro Se Plaintiff IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION ) Cause No: CV-11-64-DWM-JCL MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY ) Plaintiff v. ) MOTION FOR BITTERROOT PUBLIC LffiRARY, ) PROTECTIVE ORDER CITY OF HAMILTON, ) BRIEF IN SUPPORT LEE ENTERPRISES, INC., ) BOONE KARLBERG, PC, ) ---------------------------) Comes now Spreadbury with motion, brief in support of protective order from this court with respect to infonnation and evidence submitted by Defense counsel which is prohibited by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, irrelevant to case. 1 Motion, Brief in support: Protective Order Cause 9:2011-CV-11-64-0WM-JCl July 18,2011 Motion: WHEREFORE, Spreadbury moves that Honorable Court issue protective order restricting use ofinformation from a November 4, 2009 conversation between Spreadbury and Defendant Roddy. Said discussion is not within the scope ofthe aforementioned, is restricted from use by F.R.Civ. P. 26 (B)(viii) as exempt from initial disclosure as ancillary to a proceeding in another court; Cause No. DA-IO­ 0619 before the Supreme Court for the State of Montana. FRCP 26 (C) (1) protects from annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression. Court authority presented . in this pleading affmn the granting ofprotective order of irrelevant information as defined in FRCP 26 (3)(b)(1) discovery scope and limits. Court is asked to grant protective order restricting use of November 4, 2009 information in aforementioned. Defense Counsel oppose this motion, due to wish of severe defamation of Spreadbury outside rules of this court regardless of outcome in ancillary court. Brief in Support The Honorable Court has duty to uphold Federal Rules, established rights, and well established court authority in causes of actions within this Federal circuit. Therefore, this court has a duty, and sworn obligation to protect parties from information which goes beyond the bounds ofproper cross examination merely to 2 Motion, Brief in support: Protective Order cause 9:2011-CV-11-64-0WM-JCl July 18, 2011 harass, annoy or humiliate a party Alford v. US 282 US at 694 (I931) citing Davis v. Alaska 415 US 308 (1974). Within the FRCP, any information which is pending before an ancillary court is excluded from information FRCP 26 (B) (viii). In aforementioned, Defense counsel has submitted information that is pending before the Supreme Court for the State ofMontana Cause No. DA-10-0619, has no relevance to the peaceful assembly of Spreadbury on public property August 20, 2009, or the denial of right to procedural due process with respect to statutory library privileges at the Bitterroot Public Library germane to aforementioned. Why defense counsel charged with the defense ofmunicipality, print media corporation would include additional defamatory articles, out of scope and limits of aforementioned can only be explained in the preparation of the University of Montana Law students as the 172 ranking of 200 in the nation and declining. This Court has a substantial interest in preventing the damage to reputation and privacy that comes with Defendant Counsel abuse ofFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart 467 US at 35 (1984) citing Herbert v. Lando 441 US 153 (I979). The prevention of abuse is sufficient for the authorization of a protective order restricting use of out of scope information in the aforementioned Seattle Times Co. at 36. Spreadbury has endured more than thirty (30) articles, two (2) AP articles, publication in a national newspaper which contained false and abusive republication of information generated by the 3 Motion, Brief in support: Protective Order Cause 9:2011-CV-1l-64-0WM-JCl July 18, 2011 Defendants in Civil Conspiracy (working together) per 42 USC s. 1983; Spreadbury sought reIiefbefore this court (see First Request for Injunctive Relief filed concurrently with this pleading]. For adherence with PRCP, well established court precedent presented herein, Court is obligated by its oath to the 42nd President to uphold Federal Laws and Constitution to issue a protective order for information out of scope ofthe aforementioned, and currently before an ancillary court: The Montana Supreme Court. It is proper therefore to grant Spreadbury's good faith request for protective order against Defense information out of scope of aforementioned. Certificate of Compliance From LR 7(d)(2)(E) US District Court Rules Montana, I certify that this brief conforms with 14 point font, New Times Roman typeface, is double spaced, contains 544 words excluding title page, this compliance. Respectfully submitted this .Q'-t\ lo day of July, 2011 Michael E. Spreadbury, Self 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?