Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01955/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01955-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUMA BAND OF LUISENO MISSION

INDIANS OF THE PAUMA & YUIMA

RESERVATION, a/k/a PAUMA LUISENO

BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, a/k/a

PAUMA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, a

federally recognized Indian Tribe,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv1955 AJB (MDD)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX

PARTE MOTION FOR A

PROTECTIVE ORDER

[DOC. NO. 118]

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA;

CALIFORNIA GAMBLING CONTROL

COMMISSION, an agency of the State of

California; and ARNOLD

SCHWARZENEGGER, as Governor of the

State of California;

Defendants.

On August 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed this Ex Parte Motion for a Protective Order. (Doc. No.

118). On August 17, 2011, this Court ordered Defendants to respond on or before August 22,

2011. (Doc. No. 122). On August 22, 2011, Defendants filed their Response and Opposition. 

(Doc. No. 123).

Plaintiff asserts that it requires a protective order and other remedial relief from this Court

to prevent contact between an attorney who serves as the representative of the Governor of the

State of California with certain members of the Plaintiff’s Tribal Council. Defendants admit that

- 1 - 09cv1955 AJB (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-01955-CAB-MDD Document 124 Filed 08/23/11 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

the representative of the Governor is an attorney but that he is not acting as such – he is the party

representative of the Governor’s Office in this litigation and also serves as the representative of the

Governor’s Office in Tribal matters. 

Having reviewed the moving papers and its supporting documentation, the Plaintiff’s

Motion is DENIED. Although Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) authorizes a court to issue a protective order

regarding discovery, there is no discovery dispute before the Court. In fact, Plaintiff’s Motion fails

even to allege that the Defendants are engaging in the challenged activity for the purpose of

gathering discovery. See U. S. v. Sierra Pac. Indians, 759 F.Supp.2d 1215, 1217 (E.D. Cal. 2011). 

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: August 23, 2011

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 2 - 09cv1955 AJB (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-01955-CAB-MDD Document 124 Filed 08/23/11 Page 2 of 2