Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01375/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01375-9/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY WAYNE JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. W. McELROY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1375 GEB CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff seeks a protective order exempting him from producing certain documents to 

defendants. (ECF No. 54.) Defendants have requested that plaintiff produce these documents at 

his deposition pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(b)(2) and 34. (Id., Exs. A, B & 

D.) Plaintiff argues that the requests are untimely.

In moving for a protective order, plaintiff must make a good cause showing that without 

it, he would be significantly impeded from litigating this action. “For good cause to exist, the 

party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no 

protective order is granted.” Phillips ex re. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 

1206 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002). The focus of the harm in protective order situations is harm to the 

ability to litigate, not irreparable harm to the plaintiff. See Pope v. Garcia, 2012 WL 1552431, *3 

(E.D. Cal. 2012).

Here, plaintiff has not shown good cause for a protective order. 

Case 2:13-cv-01375-GEB-CKD Document 68 Filed 08/10/15 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for protective order 

(ECF No. 54) is denied. 

Dated: August 10, 2015

2 / jone1375.po

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-01375-GEB-CKD Document 68 Filed 08/10/15 Page 2 of 2