Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al
MOTION for Protective Order by Plaintiff Michael E. Spreadbury. Motions referred to Jeremiah C. Lynch. (APP, )
Michael E. Spreadbury
700 S. 4th Street
Hamilton, MT 59840
JUL 27 2011
Telephone: (406) 363-3877
Pro Se Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
) Cause No: CV-11-64-DWM-JCL
MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY
BITTERROOT PUBLIC LffiRARY,
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.
Motion, Brief in support: Protective Order Cause 9:2011-CV-11-64-0WM-JCl July 18,2011
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
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
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
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
lo day of July, 2011
Michael E. Spreadbury, Self
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?