Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00088/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00088-22/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

VANCE BLAINE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DARRELL ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00088-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

GONZALES’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS

MOTION TO COMPEL FILED ON JULY 10,

2007

(Docs. 86, 87, and 89)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Doc. 87)

On July 10, 2007, defendant Gonzales filed a motion to compel responses to his

interrogatories and request for the production of documents. (Doc. 86.) Plaintiff filed an opposition

on July 23, 2007, and on August 6, 2007, defendant filed a reply stating that with his opposition,

plaintiff included responses which satisfied defendant’s discovery requests and defendant therefore

moved to withdraw his motion to compel. (Docs. 87, 89.) Defendant’s motion to withdraw his

motion to compel shall be granted.

In his opposition, plaintiff also moves for a protective order. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(c) provides in part, that “[u]pon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is

sought . . . , and for good cause shown, the court . . . may make any order which justice requires to

protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense

. . . .” Plaintiff sets forth no grounds entitling him to a protective order. Defendant Gonzales is

entitled to conduct discovery pursuant to the court’s orders of February 7, 2007, and April 2, 2007.

Case 1:05-cv-00088-DGC Document 93 Filed 09/13/07 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 court’s order extending application of the discovery and scheduling order to defendant Gonzales

had the effect of allowing defendant Gonzales to engage in discovery and applying the previously

issued discovery deadline of July 10, 2007, to defendant Gonzales.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Gonzales’s motion to withdraw his motion to compel is GRANTED and

the motion to compel filed on July 10, 2007 is DEEMED WITHDRAWN; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order, filed July 23, 2007, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00088-DGC Document 93 Filed 09/13/07 Page 2 of 2