Cohen v. Clark County School District et al

Filing 83

ORDER Denying 75 Motion for a protective order regarding witnesses without prejudice. Signed by Judge Marilyn L. Huff on 9/17/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11

CYNTHIA KAPPENMAN COHEN,

CASE NO. 11-CV-1619-MLH-RJJ

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION REGARDING
WITNESSES

vs.
13
14

CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
et al.,

15

[Doc. No. 75]

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

On September 10, 2012, Plaintiff Cynthia Kappenman Cohen, proceeding pro se, filed
a motion seeking a protective order regarding witnesses. (Doc. No. 75.) On September 11,
2012, Defendant Clark County School District (“CCSD”) filed a response in opposition to
Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. No. 80.) For the reasons below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s
motion without prejudice.
Discussion
In her motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court stay on high alert to the names mentioned
in her second amended complaint (“SAC”). (Doc. No. 75 at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that the
names mentioned in her SAC could be subject to retaliation or harassment by Defendant
CCSD. (Id.) Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order regarding the protection of
witnesses from harassment, retaliation, or discrimination, but without providing any facts to

28
-1-

11cv1619

1 support the request. (Id. at 3.)
2

In its opposition, Defendant CCSD argues that Plaintiff’s motion should be stricken

3 because it is not a proper motion upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. No. 80 at 3-5.)
4 CCSD also argues that the motion should be denied because it fails to allege any inappropriate
5 conduct that has taken place in this case. (Id. at 5.) The Court agrees. Plaintiff’s motion is
6 based entirely on speculation that people who provide testimony or information against
7 Defendant CCSD in this case will be subjected to retaliation and harassment by Defendant.
8 To establish entitlement to equitable relief, a Plaintiff must show that there is a likelihood of
9 a substantial and immediate irreparable injury. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103
10 (1983). The accusations in Plaintiff’s motion are purely speculative and hypothetical, not real
11 and immediate. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice.
Conclusion

12
13

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order

14 regarding witnesses without prejudice.
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 DATED: September 17, 2012
17

______________________________

18

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

11cv1619