Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00086/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00086-29/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

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00086-OWW-GSA PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER AS MOOT

(Doc. 78)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AS PROCEDURALLY

DEFICIENT, AND DENYING MOTION FOR

TELEPHONIC HEARING

(Doc. 118)

I. Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order

On September 24, 2007, Defendants filed a motion for a protective order shielding them from

responding to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. At the time Defendants filed their motion, any

discovery propounded by Plaintiff was premature. However, Defendants thereafter filed an answer

and the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order, which opened the discovery phase of this

litigation. The parties have been engaging in discovery since that time. Defendants’ motion for a

protective order has been rendered moot by subsequent proceedings and shall be denied on that

ground. 

II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and for a Telephonic Hearing

On March 26, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel and for a telephonic hearing. At a

minimum, a motion to compel must be accompanied by a copy of the discovery requests at issue and

Case 1:05-cv-00086-OWW -GSA Document 126 Filed 04/15/08 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

the opposing party’s responses to those requests. Further, the moving partymust, for each discovery

request sought to be compelled, make a showing as to why the information sought is relevant and

why the opposing party’s objection is not justified. Plaintiff’s motion is not supported by a copy of

the discovery requests in dispute or a copy of Defendants’ responses. Further, Plaintiff’s motion

does not contain a showing as to the relevancy or address why Defendants’ objections are not

justified. Because Plaintiff’s motion is deficient, it shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal.

If deemed necessary, the Court will schedule a telephonic hearing. Otherwise, all matters are

submitted without a hearing. Local Rule 78-230(m). There are no matters currently pending before

the Court which necessitate a hearing. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a telephonic hearing shall

be denied. 

III. Order

For the reasons set forth herein, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for a protective order, filed September 24, 2007, is DENIED as

moot;

2. Plaintiff ’s motion to compel, filed March 26, 2008, is DENIED without prejudice

as procedurally deficient; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion for a telephonic hearing, filed March 26, 2008, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 14, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

60kij UNI 8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00086-OWW -GSA Document 126 Filed 04/15/08 Page 2 of 2