Troupe v. Swain et al

Filing 51

ORDER denying 43 Motion for Protective Order by Judge David W. Christel.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(David Troupe, Prisoner ID: 765714)(MET)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

DAVID TROUPE,
Plaintiff,

9

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-05380-RJB-DWC
ORDER ON MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.
10
WILLIAM SWAIN, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13

Plaintiff David Troupe, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action

14 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for
1
15 Protective Order (“Motion”), wherein Defendants request an order limiting discovery. Dkt. 43.

16 Plaintiff filed his Response and Defendants filed their Reply. Dkt. 45, 46.
17

The Court has broad discretionary powers to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle,

18 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Upon showing of good cause, the Court may deny or limit
19 discovery “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
20 burden or expense[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see also GTE Wireless, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., 192
21 F.R.D. 284, 285–86 (S.D. Cal. 2000). A court may also relieve a party of the burdens of
22
1

Also pending in this action are: (1) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in Part under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)

23 (Judgment on the Pleadings), which is ready for the Court’s consideration on September 16, 2016 (Dkt. 41); and (2)
Defendants’ Motion and Memorandum for Summary Judgment and Dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, which is

24 ready for the Court’s consideration on October 7, 2016 (Dkt. 48).
ORDER ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
-1

1 discovery while a dispositive motion is pending. DiMartini v. Ferrin, 889 F.2d 922 (9th Cir.
2 1989), amended at 906 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 1990); Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478 (9th Cir.
3 1984).
4

Discovery began on August 5, 2016. See Dkt. 40. As of September 2, 2016, Plaintiff had

5 not sent discovery requests to Defendants. Dkt. 47, Judge Supplemental Declaration, ¶4. The
6 discovery completion date is February 6, 2017. Dkt. 40. Therefore, at this time, the Court finds
7 Defendants’ Motion premature. If Plaintiff begins to propound discovery in a manner which is
8 unduly burdensome on Defendants or unnecessary in light of the pending dispositive motions,2
9 Defendants may move for a protective order at that time. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion is
10 denied without prejudice. 3
11

Dated this 9th day of September, 2016.

A

12
13

David W. Christel
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2

Defendants have moved, in part, to dismiss this case based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim and

23 failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Dkt. 41, 48.
3

Defendants requested the Court stay discovery pending the outcome of the Motion. See Dkt. 43. As the

24 Court has ruled on the Motion, the request to stay discovery is denied as moot.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
-2