Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01801/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01801-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Merced Irrigation District
Defendant
Lamonte Tumbling
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAMONTE TUMBLING, )

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT, )

)

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:08cv1801 LJO DLB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO MODIFY THE PROTECTIVE ORDER

FILED ON OCTOBER 13, 2009,

PROHIBITING PLAINTIFF FROM SEEKING

DISCOVERY RELATING TO THE

PERSONNEL FILE OF BELINDA

ALMEIDA/DELEON

(Documents 67, 72)

On February 22, 2010, Plaintiff LaMonte Tumbling (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant motion

to modify the Court’s order of October 13, 2009, which prohibited Plaintiff from seeking

discovery relating to the personnel file of Belinda Almeida/DeLeon. On March 12, 2010, the

parties filed a joint statement of discovery dispute. The Court deemed the matter suitable for

decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) and vacated the March 19, 2010

hearing.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the instant employment discrimination action on November 21, 2008,

against Defendant Merced Irrigation District (“MID”). The complaint states causes of action

under Title VII, California’s Fair Housing and Employment Act and other federal and state

statutes based mainly on allegations of race and gender discrimination. 

1

Case 1:08-cv-01801-LJO-DLB Document 79 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 5
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

On May 12, 2009, as part of his initial disclosures, Plaintiff produced a November 15,

2008, videotaped interview of Belinda Almeida (“Almeida”). In the interview, Almeida

reportedly complained of suffering from a hostile and discriminatory work environment.

On October 6, 2009, Almeida was terminated from employment at MID. Exhibit H and J

to Declaration of Lawrence Murray (“Murray Dec.”).

On October 13, 2009, the Court issued an order limiting the scope of Plaintiff’s discovery

requests. The Court found that the personnel file of Belinda Almeida/DeLeon was not relevant

to a claim or defense and granted MID a protective order. 

Non-expert discovery closed on October 30, 2009. 

On November 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the Court’s October 13, 2009

protective order. Plaintiff asserted that there was good cause to allow him discovery into

allegations of an affair between MID employees Mike Higgins and Veronica Cavazos. 

On November 17, 2009, Plaintiff’s counsel conducted the deposition of Robert Blum and

attempted to ask questions regarding Almeida’s termination. Defense counsel instructed Blum

not to answer based on the Court’s October 13, 2009 order. 

On November 30, 2009, Almeida signed a declaration in support of Plaintiff’s efforts to

modify the Court’s protective order regarding the alleged relationship between Higgins and

Cavazos. Exhibit G to Murray Dec. The Court denied the motion on January 11, 2010. 

With the exception of three depositions (Trudy Largent, Cindy LaCava and Jem Brown),

non-expert depositions were to be completed by February 15, 2010. 

On February 22, 2010, after the deadline for completion of non-expert discovery and the

majority of non-expert depositions, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to modify the Court’s

protective order and permit questioning into the termination of Almeida. 

On March 12, 2010, the parties filed a joint statement of discovery dispute. 

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

A district court has the power to modify or lift a protective order that it has entered. 

Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Janet Greeson’s A Place for Us, Inc., 62 F.3d 1217, 1219

2

Case 1:08-cv-01801-LJO-DLB Document 79 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 5
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

(9th Cir. 1995). The issue is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. See, e.g., In re

Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation, 101 F.R.D. 34, 40-

41 (C.D.Cal. 1984); see also Beckman Industries, Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 474 (9th

Cir. 1992) (request to modify a protective order reviewed for abuse of discretion). 

The parties both agree that there must be good cause shown before a protective order can

be vacated. Murata Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Bel Fuse, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 175, 179 (N.D.Ill. 2006) (“It

should be no surprise that, there having been good cause to enter the protective order in the first

place, there must be good cause shown before it can be vacated”). The party seeking to vacate or

modify the protective order bears the burden to demonstrate good cause. Id. 

In this instance, the parties have identified multiple (and different) factors that courts

consider in determining good cause. For example, MID indicates that some courts consider: (1)

the nature of the protective order, (2) the foreseeability, at the time of issuance of the order, of

the modification requested, (3) the parties' reliance on the order; and most significantly (4)

whether good cause exists for the modification. Murata, 234 F.R.D. at 179 (citing Bayer AG and

Miles, Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 456, 460 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)). 

Plaintiff notes that some courts consider: (1) the extent of reliance on the order; (2) the

public and private interests affected; (3) the moving party’s consent to submit to the terms; (4)

reasons for issuing the order and any new information; and (5) the burden created for others

seeking information relevant to other litigation. Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsberg, 23 F.3d 772,

790 (3d Cir. 1994). Plaintiff also cites Bayer. 

B. Analysis

Plaintiff contends that the Court’s protective order was limited to Plaintiff’s request for

the contents of Almeida’s personnel file, but did not prohibit all discovery into Almeida’s

employment and termination. In its Order, the Court stated:

Plaintiff’s complaint contains no identifiable allegations involving Belinda

Almeida/DeLeon. At oral argument, Plaintiff contended that Higgins forced him to hire

Almeida/DeLeon, but failed to link her with any alleged discrimination against him. 

Plaintiff admitted that Almeida/DeLeon was hired as his subordinate. As such, the Court

find[s] that the personnel file of Almeida/DeLeon is not relevant to a claim or defense

and MID’s request for protective order is GRANTED.

3

Case 1:08-cv-01801-LJO-DLB Document 79 Filed 03/24/10 Page 3 of 5
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

October 13, 2009 Order, p. 10. In granting the protective order, the Court “prohibited Plaintiff’s

wholesale inquiry into personnel information about third-party employees and former

employees” and applied the limitations to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents. Order,

p. 16. For instance, the Court prohibited discovery of documents or communications: (1)

demonstrating Almeida’s pay; (2) her job descriptions; and (3) any of her job performance

reviews or evaluations. At the time of the hearing on the protective order, Almeida was still

employed by MID. 

Plaintiff now wants the Court to instruct Defendant to respond to questions regarding

Almeida’s termination for the “narrow purpose of assessing whether her termination was the

result of retaliation or a motive to silence other employees from speaking out against MID’s

corporate culture and assisting Plaintiff in the conducting of discovery.” Joint Statement, p. 9. 

Plaintiff’s request is untimely. Plaintiff waited more than 3 months after Robert Blum’s

deposition to bring the instant motion. Plaintiff also waited until after the non-expert discovery

and deposition deadlines to bring this motion. No explanation for the delay is provided.

Furthermore, although the Court’s order did not expressly prohibit deposition

questioning, the rationale for denying such discovery was equally applicable. To the extent that

Plaintiff now claims Almeida was terminated in retaliation for her assistance with this action, any

alleged retaliation is relevant to Almeida, not to Plaintiff’s claims of discrimination and

retaliation occurring prior to June 27, 2007. 

 Plaintiff alternatively argues that even if the protective order extended to Almeida’s

termination, there is good cause to modify the order. Plaintiff seeks “to assess the potential

ulterior motive of [MID] to threaten, warn, and scare other employees from engaging in similar

practices and speaking out against injustice or assisting Plaintiff in conducting discovery.” Joint

Statement, p. 18. Plaintiff argues that the chilling effect is obvious as “the repercussions for

providing truthful and helpful information to Plaintiff will be met with punishment and the

potential loss of employment.” Joint Statement, p. 18. 

Setting aside the untimely nature of the motion, Plaintiff’s argument is unpersuasive. 

Plaintiff taped the interview with Almeida in November 2008. Blum testified under oath on

4

Case 1:08-cv-01801-LJO-DLB Document 79 Filed 03/24/10 Page 4 of 5
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

November 17, 2009, after Almeida’s termination, that he never received or reviewed a disc with

an audio statement by Almeida, and he did not ever become aware that Almeida gave a statement

used by Plaintiff in any proceeding. Exhibit B to Declaration of Matthew Racine. Further,

Almeida signed the supporting declaration in this action on November 30, 2009, which was after

she received notice on September 28, 2009, that MID intended to terminate her employment, and

after she was terminated. Exhibit H to Murray Dec. In addition, the parties began formal

discovery in March 2009, before Almeida’s termination. Plaintiff does not identify any

employees that would not speak out or assist Plaintiff with discovery or why such discovery

could not be obtained prior to Almeida’s termination in October 2009. Plaintiff also provides no

evidence that other MID employees were aware of Almeida’s role in this action. Accordingly,

the Court does not find good cause to modify the protective order. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the above, Plaintiff’s motion to modify the October 13, 2009, order is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 23, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 1:08-cv-01801-LJO-DLB Document 79 Filed 03/24/10 Page 5 of 5