Ovard v. Summit County
Filing
58
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 54 Motion for Protective Order ; granting 54 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 11/26/2012. (asp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
DELORES OVARD
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:11-cv-00592-RJS-DBP
SUMMIT COUNTY
District Judge Robert J. Shelby
Defendant.
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter was referred to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Before the Court
is Defendant’s motion for a protective order. For the reasons discussed below, the Court
DENIES Defendant’s motion. (Docket No. 54.)
II. BACKGROUND
On April 3, 2012, District Judge Dale A. Kimball issued a second, amended scheduling
order that set the fact discovery deadline in this case for July 3, 2012. (Docket No. 35.)
However, on July 23, 2012, District Judge Kimball issued an order that stated “the Second
Amended Scheduling Order . . . [is] hereby vacated and all deadlines established therein are
extended indefinitely.” (Docket No. 49.)
Page 1 of 3
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
On November 5, 2012, Defendant filed this motion for a protective order. (Docket No.
54.) The Court may, for good cause, “issue an order to protect a party . . . from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” by forbidding the discovery sought.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A).
III. ANALYSIS
Defendant seeks an order protecting it from responding to: (1) Plaintiff’s fourth set of
interrogatories; and (2) Plaintiff’s fourth set of document production requests. (Docket No. 54 at
2.) Defendant claims providing the aforementioned discovery will cause annoyance, undue
burden, or unnecessary expense where the fact discovery deadline was July 3, 2012, and Plaintiff
untimely served the requests “after the close of fact discovery” on October 1, 2012. (Docket
Nos. 54-55.) Defendant argues that Judge Kimball’s decision to vacate all scheduling deadlines
did not “revive previously expired dates, like the discovery cutoff deadline.” (Docket No. 55 at
4.)
In her opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant’s reading of District Judge Kimball’s order
“goes against the plain wording of the order.” (Docket No. 56 at 2.) Plaintiff claims she relied
on this order when she withdrew her motion to extend the July 3, 2012 discovery cut-off.
(Docket No. 56 at 2.)
The Court agrees with Plaintiff. District Judge Kimball’s July 23, 2012 order clearly
“vacated” the July 3, 2012 discovery deadline that was in the previous scheduling order, and
Page 2 of 3
“extended indefinitely” such deadlines. (Docket No. 49.) Therefore, the Court DENIES
Defendant’s motion for a protective order. (Docket No. 54.)
IV. ORDERS
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for a protective order be DENIED.
(Docket No. 54.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(3) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(5)(B), Plaintiff’s request for reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in
opposing Defendant’s motion, is GRANTED.
Dated this 26th day of November, 2012.
Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 3 of 3
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?