Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00318/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00318-34/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Several motions are pending before the court, including terminating sanctions and a motion to 

supplement the complaint. In addition to these motions, on January 23, 2015, Defendants filed an ex 

parte application to shorten the time to move to quash the deposition subpoenas issued by Plaintiff to 

third party witnesses County of Merced District Attorney Larry Morse, County of Merced County 

Counsel James Fincher, and County of Merced County Sheriff Thomas Cavallero. Plaintiff filed 

oppositions to the ex parte request. (Doc. 294-295.) Plaintiff also filed a “Request for Courts’

Confirmation” regarding subpoenas. (Doc. 290-291.) Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s 

request. (Doc. 292.)

In the interest of conserving the resources of both the court and the parties, the court STAYS 

deposition discovery, including subpoenas, pending the resolution of Plaintiff’s motion to supplement. 

Under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court may, for good cause shown, 

issue a protective order regarding discovery. A court may enter such an order sua sponte. See e.g., 

McCoy v. Southwest Airlines Co., 211 F.R.D. 381, 385 (C.D. Cal. 2002); Coleman v. Schwarzenegger,

EUGENE E. FORTE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF MERCED, et al.,

Defendants.

/

Case No. 1:11-cv-00318-AWI-BAM

ORDER STAYING DEPOSITION 

DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION 

OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

SUPPLEMENT (Doc. 280-282.)

Case 1:11-cv-00318-AWI-BAM Document 296 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 2
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

2007 WL 4276554 (E.D. Cal. Nov.29, 2007) (“Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and in 

the inherent discretion of a court to manage its own discovery, a court may sua sponte enter a 

protective order for good cause shown. A protective order may include an order that “discovery not be 

had.”)

ORDER

1. Deposition Discovery, including subpoenas, is STAYED pending the resolution of the 

motion to supplement the complaint.

2. Plaintiff’s Reply brief for his motion to supplement remains due on January 30, 2015.

3. Upon ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to supplement, the Court will address any extension of 

the fact discovery deadline to address proper deposition discovery requests.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00318-AWI-BAM Document 296 Filed 01/26/15 Page 2 of 2