(PC) Mills v. Jones ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS K. MILLS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01193-ADA-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 v. (Doc. No. 128) 14 Z. JONES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order filed on August 11, 18 2022. (Doc. No. 128). Plaintiff requests a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) to 19 prevent Defendant from asking him questions at a deposition about his criminal record, prison 20 file, an unspecified incident that occurred at North Kern State Prison on June 6, 2021, and “any 21 other inappropriate questions Plaintiff doesn’t want to answer…” (Doc. No. 128 at 2-3). 22 Defendants filed an opposition through an omnibus response on September 14, 2022, 23 opposing Plaintiff’s motion on multiple grounds. (Doc. No. 137). Defendants first argue that the 24 motion should be denied under Local Rule 251(b) and Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 25 Procedure because Plaintiff failed to meet and confer with defense counsel prior to filing his 26 motion for a protective order. (Doc. No. 137 at 11). Additionally, Defendants argue the motion 27 is premature because Plaintiff’s deposition has not even been scheduled and is improper because 28 it was filed with the “purpose of anticipatorily evading [Plaintiff’s] discovery obligations in this 1 case.” (Id.). Finally, Defendants argue, granting Plaintiff’s motion would “prohibit Defendants 2 from discovering relevant information that bears on the claims and defenses at issue in this 3 action” in violation of Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Supreme Court 4 precedent. (Id. at 12). 5 A party is authorized to move for a protective order and must show the court good cause 6 for issuing a protective order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). To show good cause, the party seeking the 7 protective order must show the specific prejudice or harm that will be the consequence of not 8 granting a protective order. Philips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corps. 307 F.3d 9 1206, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 2002) (quotation and citations omitted). See also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. 10 International Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9thCir. 1992)(holding that the Rule 26(c) test is not 11 met when a party makes broad allegations of harm that are unsubstantiated by specific examples 12 or articulated reasoning). Protective orders may be issued to forbid certain disclosures or 13 discovery, forbid a party from inquiring into certain matters, or to limit the scope of the disclosure 14 or discovery of a certain matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(D). 15 During a deposition, a party can object to evidence, a question, or any other aspect of the 16 deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2). A party’s objection will be noted in the record, but the 17 examination will continue and the question will still be answered. Id. (emphasis added). 18 Plaintiff’s request for a protective order alleges the exact broad allegations of harm the 19 Ninth Circuit sought to prevent in Phillips. Plaintiff does not provide specific details on what 20 harm he will experience if he answers questions pertaining to his criminal record, his prison file, 21 and the June 6, 2021 incident. Instead of providing any details on the harm he will experience, 22 Plaintiff requests that he be precluded from answering the questions because he is pro se and the 23 questions are inappropriate for a deposition. (Doc. No. 128 at 3). Plaintiff fails to meet his 24 burden as established by the Ninth Circuit in Phillips. Plaintiff has other appropriate remedies 25 available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if he believes he is asked objectionable 26 questions during his deposition. In accordance with Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil 27 Procedure, Plaintiff merely needs to state his objection to the question for the record, but then 28 must answer the question (barring any other limitations in Rule 30). This Court will follow the 1 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and rule on any objections made at the deposition at the 2 | appropriate time in the litigation process as appropriate. 3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 4 Plaintiff's motion for a protective order (Doc. No. 128) is DENIED. 5 ° | Dated: _ October 24, 2022 Mihaw. □□ fareh Hack 7 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28