Vorak v. Byrnes et al

Filing 61

ORDER Granting 37 Defendants' Motion for Protective Order, Granting 58 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response, and Resetting Deadlines. Motion Hearings on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 40 , a nd Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, ECF No. 52 , are Reset to Ocrober 17, 2014, at 6:30 p.m. Without Oral Argument (cc: Plaintiff via first class mail). Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (PL, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

4
5

KALE VORAK,
Plaintiff,

6
v.

7
8

No. CV-13-0335-SMJ

JOHN SERVATIUS and CHUCK
PRATHER,

9

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER,
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE RESPONSE, AND
RESETTING DEADLINES

Defendants.
10
11

Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order, ECF No. 37,

12

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Summary Judgment, ECF

13

No. 58, and Plaintiff’s related Motion to Expedite, ECF No. 59. The Court,

14

having reviewed the pleadings and file in this matter, is fully informed, and grants

15

the motions for the reasons that follow.

16

I.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

17

Defendants seek a protective order that would allow Defendants to not

18

release the full legal name and dates of birth of both Defendants. Plaintiff’s

19

interrogatories to both Defendants sought disclosure of their full legal name and

20

date of birth. Defendants objected that the information was not relevant to a claim

ORDER - 1

1

raised. ECF No. 38. Defendants now maintain the information is not only

2

irrelevant but also sensitive information that should not be produced to a person

3

with Plaintiff’s convictions.

4

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, parties may obtain discovery

5

regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or

6

defense, and, for good cause, the Court may order discovery of any matter

7

relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

8

Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears

9

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. The

10

Court must limit discovery if the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs its

11

likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii).

12

Here, Plaintiff has asserted the sole need for the information is to conduct

13

background investigations into each Defendant’s criminal history. However, in

14

response to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, Plaintiff has been provided their criminal

15

history. Accordingly, the Court finds that production of the legal name and date

16

of birth has not been shown to be reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of

17

admissible evidence. Furthermore, courts have routinely denied disclosure of

18

dates of birth, and other sensitive personal information, to incarcerated pro se

19

parties. See e.g., Anderson v. Hansen, 1:09-CV-01924-LJO, 2012 WL 4049979

20

(E.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2012) (finding privacy and safety risk in disclosing date of

ORDER - 2

1

birth); Kowalski v. Stewart, 220 F.R.D. 599, 601 (D. Ariz. 2004) (finding

2

disclosure of personal information to inmate would jeopardize defendant’s

3

personal safety); Bryant v. Gallagher, 1:11-CV-00446-LJO, 2013 WL 3773862

4

(E.D. Cal. July 17, 2013) (finding disclosure of full name and date of birth

5

presents legitimate safety and security concerns); Silva v. McKenna, C11-5629

6

RBL/KLS, 2012 WL 1596971 (W.D. Wash. May 7, 2012) (finding Defendant’s

7

dates of birth did not bear on Plaintiff’s claims). Accordingly, the Court grants

8

Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order, ECF No. 37, prohibiting the release of

9

the full legal names and dates of birth of Defendants.

10

II.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

11

Plaintiff seeks additional time to file a response to Defendant’s Motion for

12

Summary Judgment, ECF No. 40, in order to provide time to receive and review

13

responses to his requests for production. Defendants do not object to an extension

14

of time. ECF No. 60. Here, as Plaintiff in good faith sought to compel production

15

of the responsive documents to his requests for productions, ECF No. 28, but was

16

not entitled, as a matter of law, to receive free copies, ECF Nos. 50 & 54, he has

17

demonstrated good cause for an extension of time so that he may receive and

18

review those documents before having to respond to Defendants’ motion.

19

Plaintiff paid to receive the responsive document on August 20, 2014, and August

20

25, 2014. Defendants state the records were mailed to Plaintiff on August 26,

ORDER - 3

1

2014. Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff until September 29, 2014, to file

2

a response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

3

Additionally, in extending the time to respond, the Court finds it necessary

4

to extend the hearing date on the summary judgment motion. Furthermore, having

5

reviewed the materials filed to date, the Court finds it prudent to consider

6

concurrently Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Motion

7

for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, and therefore resets the motion hearings

8

accordingly.

9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.

Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order, ECF No. 37, is

11

GRANTED.

12

names and dates of birth as requested by Plaintiff in discovery.

13

2.

Defendants do not have to release their full legal

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Summary

14

Judgment, ECF No. 58, and related Motion to Expedite, ECF No.

15

59, are GRANTED.

16

3.

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

17

shall be filed by no later than September 29, 2014. Defendants’

18

Reply shall be filed by no later than October 13, 2014.

19

4.

The Motion Hearings on Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment, ECF No. 40, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an

20

ORDER - 4

1

Amended Complaint, ECF No. 52, are RESET to October 17, 2014,

2

at 6:30 PM Without Oral Argument.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order
and provide copies to all counsel and to Plaintiff.
DATED this 8th day of September 2014.

6
___________________________
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR.
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Q:\SMJ\Civil\2013\Vorak v. Donna Byrnes-0335\order.motions.lc1.docx

ORDER - 5