Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02259/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02259-12/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT DUANE FRANKLIN,

Plaintiff, No. 2:07-cv-2259 FCD KJN P

vs.

G. DUDLEY, 

Defendant. ORDER 

 /

Introduction

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a protective order regarding

deposition testimony, filed on March 12, 2010, and plaintiff’s motion to compel filed on March

17, 2010.

Motion for Protective Order

“It is well-established that [under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,] the fruits

of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.” 

San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. United States District Court-Northern District, 187 F.3d 1096,

1103 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 26(c), which governs the granting of a protective order, “authorizes a

Case 2:07-cv-02259-KJM-KJN Document 52 Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 3
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

2

district court to override this presumption where ‘good cause’ is shown.” San Jose Mercury

News, 187 F.3d at 1103. Rule 26(c) confers “broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a

protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required.” See Seattle Times Co.

v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984).

To obtain a protective order, the party resisting discovery or seeking limitations

must, under Rule 26(c), show good cause for its issuance. “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 v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir.

2002). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated

reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d

470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

Additionally, a court will not grant a motion to seal documents unless the

proponent makes a particularized showing either that the record is one traditionally kept secret or

that there is a compelling reason for sealing the document. Kamakana v. City and County of

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006). Compelling reasons that would outweigh the

public's interest in disclosure include the likelihood the record would be used for an improper

purpose, such as to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements or

release trade secrets. Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978).

Plaintiff’s motion is severely deficient. Plaintiff requests the protective order to

prevent annoyance, embarrassment and oppression, yet presents no arguments why the subject of

the testimony would lead to this result. Plaintiff has failed to set forth compelling reasons in

favor of a protective order, thus the motion is denied.

Motion to Compel

On March 17, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to compel answers to interrogatories. 

Unbeknownst to plaintiff, on the same day, March 17, 2010, defendant filed a motion for an

extension to serve discovery responses as discovery was scheduled to expire on March 26, 2010. 

Case 2:07-cv-02259-KJM-KJN Document 52 Filed 04/14/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

 The court granted defendant’s extension and granted defendant until April 22, 2010, to serve her

discovery responses. On April 7, 2010, defendant filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion to

compel and indicated that due to the extension to serve discovery responses the motion to compel

was moot. Though not explicitly stated, the court assumes that defendant has served the

discovery responses or will serve them by April 22, 2010.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is most likely moot as the discovery responses will

be served, therefore plaintiff’s motion to compel is vacated. However, as the court is not aware

of plaintiff’s requests and what defendant intends to serve in response, plaintiff will be granted

until April 30, 2010, to file any further motion to compel. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that he

should only file a further motion to compel if it is absolutely necessary.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order, filed on March 12, 2010, is denied. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed on March 17, 2010, is vacated.

3. Plaintiff has until April 30, 2010, to file a new motion to compel, only if

necessary. 

DATED: April 13, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

fran2259.po

Case 2:07-cv-02259-KJM-KJN Document 52 Filed 04/14/10 Page 3 of 3