Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01214/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01214-20/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

THOMAS K. MILLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZACHERY JONES, et al.

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-01214-JLT-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

(ECF No. 58)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a stipulated protective order, filed 

April 29, 2024. (ECF No. 58.) Defendants filed an opposition on April 30, 2024. (ECF No. 59.)

Plaintiff contends that “[d]iscovery in this action is likely to involve production of 

confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection may be warranted. 

Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following stipulated 

protective order.” (ECF No. 58 at 2-3.) Defendants object to latter sentence as a 

misrepresentation to the Court, by Plaintiff, under penalty of perjury. Defendants submit that 

there has never been a discussion between the parties regarding a protective order. (ECF No. 59, 

Declaration of Matthew R. Stohl (Stohl Decl.) ¶ 2.) Nor did Defendants agree to a protective 

order or advise Plaintiff he could make such representation to the Court on their behalf. (Id. ¶ 4.) 

Case 1:23-cv-01214-JLT-SAB Document 61 Filed 05/01/24 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

Defendants proffer that should a protective order become necessary, they will meet and confer 

with Plaintiff at that time, but at the present time they request Plaintiff’s motion be denied. (ECF 

No. 59 at 2.) 

Because Defendants did not stipulate the protective order submitted by Plaintiff, and there 

is no showing as to the necessity for a protective order, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Plaintiff is 

advised and cautioned to refrain from signing documents under penalty of perjury unless all of the 

statements included therein are true and correct. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Plaintiff is warned that 

any future misuse of the litigation process may result in sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01214-JLT-SAB Document 61 Filed 05/01/24 Page 2 of 2