Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06598/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06598-8/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DORIS KING, et al, CASE NO. CV F 04-6598 LJO

Plaintiffs, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S PROTECTIVE

ORDER MOTION

vs. (Doc. 49.)

FRESNO CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT

et al,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff Jeremy King (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner and proceeds pro se in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983

wrongful death and related action. On June 1, 2006, plaintiff filed his “Motion in Opposition of Taking

of Deposition in Violation of Rule 30(a)(2); Rule 30(b)(1); Request for Sanction Thereof” (“sanctions

motion”). The sanctions motion claimed that defense counsel violated “rules of federal civil procedure,

and has further failed to serve plaintiff with numerous filings.” The sanctions motion took issue with

setting plaintiff’s deposition for, among other reasons, defense counsel’s failure to obtain leave of court

to depose plaintiff in prison to comply with F.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2). The sanctions motion asked to impose

against defense counsel unspecified monetary sanctions, a contempt order, and an order that defense

counsel “immediately serve all prior filing and documents, requests, etc.”

This Court’s June 7, 2006 order (“June 7 order”) explained to plaintiff that defense counsel is

not required to serve all prior papers on plaintiff and that defense counsel properly had served papers

on plaintiff’s former counsel. The June 7 order noted that plaintiff has failed to honor his affirmative

Case 1:04-cv-06598-NEW Document 51 Filed 07/12/06 Page 1 of 3
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

duty to inform the Court and opposing parties of his current address. See Local Rule 83-183(b). The

June 7 order denied plaintiff relief sought by the sanctions motion on grounds that plaintiff “fails to

substantiate his requested relief.”

On July10, 2006, plaintiff filed his pending “Motion and Request for Protective Order of Work

Product” (“protective order motion”). The protective order motion raises points similar to those of the

sanctions motion. With the protective order motion, “plaintiff asks this Court to issue an Order

protecting plaintiff from undue harassing by way of deposition, and a limiting of disclosure of work

product accorded all other counsel.” Plaintiff apparently filed the protective order motion to respond,

in part, to defendant City of Fresno’s (“City’s”) pending motion for leave to depose plaintiff in prison.

At the outset, the protective order motion is untimely. This Court’s October 7, 2005 scheduling

orderset a June 2, 2006 deadline to hear nonexpert discoverymotions. The protective order ignores the

deadline and fails to demonstrate good cause under F.R.Civ.P. 16(b) to modify the deadline to hear the

protective order motion. “A schedule shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause and

by leave of the district judge or, when authorized by local rule, by a magistrate judge.” F.R.Civ.P. 16(b).

In addition to its lateness, plaintiff’s protective order motion has other flaws. Plaintiff seeks

relief under F.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5) which requires a party withholding information under a claim of

privilege or subject to protection to “make the claim expressly” and to “describe the nature of the

documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing

information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the

privilege or protection.” Plaintiff “assert[s] the privilege of counsel.” Plaintiff appears to assert the

attorney work product protection but is not an attorney and fails to explain the protection’s application.

Plaintiff fails to comply with F.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5) to describe the information which he claims is

privileged or protected.

Plaintiff’s protective order motion references F.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2) to “limit discovery.”

F.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2) permits a court to limit frequency or extent of discovery methods if certain criteria

are met. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate application of F.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2) or satisfaction of its criteria.

The further points raised in the protective order motion are of no avail.

As such, this Court DENIES plaintiff’s protective order motion and relief which plaintiff seeks

Case 1:04-cv-06598-NEW Document 51 Filed 07/12/06 Page 2 of 3
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

by his protective order motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06598-NEW Document 51 Filed 07/12/06 Page 3 of 3