Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00701/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00701-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas D. MCCAFFREY, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

John SNOW, SECRETARY OF THE

TREASURY, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-0701-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to File Second Amended Complaint

[Doc. No. 23], filed on May 3rd, 2006. Defendants' opposed Plaintiff's motion and

simultaneously filed a Motion for Protective Order [Doc. No. 27]. The Court will grant both

motions for the reasons provided below.

I. Plaintiff's Motion to File Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which will add four

paragraphs to the Amended Complaint. The requested additions relate to allegedly

retaliatory events occurring after the filing of the initial Complaint. Defendant opposes

Plaintiff's motion with respect to proposed paragraph 27, arguing that the amendment would

be futile because Plaintiff failed to timely exhaust his administrative remedies. The parties

also dispute whether the standards of Rule 15 or Rule 16 control the present inquiry. 

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure controls the present inquiry because the

Court did not set a deadline for amendments to the pleadings in the March 3, 2005

Scheduling Order. Had the Court limited the time to amend the pleadings in the Scheduling

Case 2:04-cv-00701-SMM Document 39 Filed 10/06/06 Page 1 of 4
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 -

Order, then Plaintiff would be required to show good cause for amending the Complaint

under Rule 16(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. However, Plaintiff is not seeking to modify the scheduling

order since there is no date to modify. Thus, Rule 15 controls the present inquiry.

Rule 15(a) provides that "leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed.

R. Civ. P. While leave to amend is not automatic, it will generally be granted unless the

opposing party makes a showing of "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of

the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue

prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment or futility of

amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

Defendant argues that the proposed amendment would be futile because Plaintiff

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to the alleged retaliatory assignment

of Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS) database records. Specifically,

Defendant claims that Plaintiff knew or should have known of the alleged retaliatory

assignment of TECS records in May of 2001 and that he has failed to file a timely claim of

unlawful retaliation and/or exhaust his administrative remedies. 

The Court finds that the proposed amendment is not futile because Plaintiff has

provided sufficient evidence to support the claim that he was unaware of the alleged

retaliatory assignment of TECS records until January 14, 2005. (Dkt. 31 at Exhibit A)

Plaintiff has also provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he has timely filed charges

of retaliation and has exhausted his administrative remedies. (Dkt. 31 at Exhibit A)

Therefore, in light of the evidence proffered by Plaintiff, the Court finds that the proposed

amendment is not futile and that justice requires granting Plaintiff leave to file a Second

Amended Complaint. 

II. Defendant's Motion for Protective Order

Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant has moved

for a Protective Order to preclude a second deposition of fact witness Kathy Sinclair.

Defendant has not, however, filed the certification necessary under LRCiv 7.2(j) of the Rules

of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, effective December

Case 2:04-cv-00701-SMM Document 39 Filed 10/06/06 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

1, 2005 ("Local Rules"). LRCiv 7.2(j) states "no discovery motion will be considered or

decided unless a statement of moving counsel is attached thereto certifying that after personal

consultation and sincere efforts to do so, counsel have been unable to satisfactorily resolve

the matter." Defendant did not accompany his motion for a protective order with the required

certification; however, Plaintiff's counsel has certified that the parties conferred

telephonically prior to requesting the Court to intervene. Therefore, in the interest of judicial

economy, the Court will consider Defendant's motion. Both parties are hereby warned that

the Court will not consider any future motions that fail to comply with the established

Federal and Local Rules. 

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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). "Good cause" requires the moving party to make a clear

showing of a particular and specific need for the order. See Blankenship v. Hearst Corp. 519

F.2d 418, 429 (1975). Here, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has no legitimate reason to

subject Ms. Sinclair to a second deposition and that another deposition will only serve to

intimidate a fact witness in this litigation. (Dkt 27 at 7-8) Ms. Sinclair has formally accused

Plaintiff of intimidation and harassment in the workplace for his actions occurring the day

after she was deposed. (Dkt. at 6) In response to Ms. Sinclair's allegations, a verbal cease

and desist order was issued against Plaintiff, barring him from any contact with Ms. Sinclair.

Plaintiff contends that a second deposition will lead to relevant evidence of retaliation and

is therefore necessary. (Dkt. at Exhibit B)

The Court finds that Defendant has successfully identified a particular and specific

need for issuing the protective order. Defendant's need to protect Ms. Sinclair and her right

to pursue a claim for workplace harassment supplies the Court with good cause to issue a

protective order.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above,

Case 2:04-cv-00701-SMM Document 39 Filed 10/06/06 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to File Second Amended

Complaint [Doc. No. 23] is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is directed to file with the Court a signed

Second Amended Complaint, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and LRCiv 7.1(b)(1) of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Protective Order [Doc.

No. 27] is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall not conduct a second deposition of Ms. Sinclair. 

DATED this 5th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00701-SMM Document 39 Filed 10/06/06 Page 4 of 4