Opinion ID: 2979686
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Protective Order for Mayor Pickett

Text: Graves claims that the district court improperly issued a protective order prohibiting him from deposing Mayor Pickett during discovery. We review a district court’s decisions regarding discovery matters for abuse of discretion. Dortch v. Fowler, 588 F.3d 396, 400 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). Reversal is proper “only if we are firmly convinced of a mistake that affects substantial rights and amounts to more than harmless error.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A district court may “protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” by issuing a protective order “forbidding . . . discovery” if the court has “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A). Here, the district court issued the protective order after concluding that Mayor Pickett could not provide any information relevant to Graves’s claims. Mayor Pickett submitted affidavits averring that he had no personal knowledge of the events or investigation underlying the case. Graves responded that Mayor Pickett could provide valuable testimony because he was formerly the chief of the Glasgow Police, although not during Graves’s mistaken arrest, and had previously demanded the resignation of Glasgow Police Chief Gary Bewley for reasons unrelated to Graves’s case. On appeal, Graves argues that the protective order was improper because Pickett was mayor, “a career law enforcement officer and former police chief of the [C]ity of Glasgow, and “specifically knowledgeable about the facts of this case, as he was quoted in the local paper as having such No. 10-5346 Graves v. Bowles, et al. Page 11 knowledge.” We disagree that the order was improper. The parties briefed the issue of the protective order before the district court issued the order. This gave Graves an opportunity to rebut Mayor Pickett’s affidavits. However, he could not refute Pickett’s lack of relevant knowledge regarding the case, and even today, he has failed to explain to us precisely what facts Mayor Pickett may possibly reveal. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the protective order after finding that Mayor Pickett could not provide relevant testimony.