Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05369/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05369-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 5369 OWW LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER (Doc. 47) 

Eric Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint

on September 22, 2003, and the Court found cognizable his claim against Defendant Alameida,

Jr. for violation of the Eighth Amendment based on an unconstitutional policy and practice 

regarding transgender inmates. 

On May 2, 2005, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Protective Order stating that he was

currently scheduled to be deposed by Defendants on May 18, 2005. Plaintiff was scheduled for a

review of his central files on May 9, 2005, but alleges that prison officials are not complying in

allowing him to review the files prior to May 9, 2005. Plaintiff states this leaves him with

insufficient time to prepare for the deposition. Plaintiff also requested that the deposition be

conducted without the presence of prison officials or security restraints on his person. 

On May 6, 2005, Defendants filed an Opposition to the Motion for Protective Order

stating that Plaintiff has failed to present good cause for a protective order. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), provides that “on matters relating to a deposition,

the court in the district where the deposition is to be taken may make any order which justice

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 51 Filed 05/11/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Pursuant to the Court’s discovery and scheduling order issued August 11, 2004, “[a] discovery motion that

does not comply with all applicable rules will be stricken . . . .” (Court Doc. 22:6-10.) 

2

requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue

burden or expense, including one or more of the following . . . . (2) that the disclosure or

discovery not be had; . . . (5) that discovery be conducted with no one present except persons

designated by the Court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). 

In an Order issued May 9, 2005, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request that he be deposed

without physical restraints and without the presence of prison officials. 

With regard to Plaintiff’s allegation that he has insufficient time to review his central files

and prepare for a deposition, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to present good cause warranting

the issuance of a protective order. 

As noted by Defendants, Plaintiff does not demonstrate the specific prejudice or harm

that will result if a protect order is not granted. See, Beckman Indus., Inc. v. International Ins. 

Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that broad allegations of harm unsubstantiated by

specific examples do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 26(c)). Other than his assertion that

there is insufficient time to review the files and prepare for the deposition, Plaintiff provides no

information on why more time is needed. Accordingly, the Court will DENY the Motion for

Protective Order based on Plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate good cause. 

The Court notes further that in filing the Motion for Protective Order, Plaintiff has also

failed to comply with Rule 26(c)’s requirement that Plaintiff provide “certification that the

movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort

to resolve the dispute without court action . . . .”1 Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(c). In any event, 

as the Court finds the Motion lacking in good cause, the Motion for Protective Order is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 51 Filed 05/11/05 Page 2 of 2