IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 12, 2011
ARMANDO ABREU, PLAINTIFF,
F. BRAGA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff's motions for a protective order to prevent defendants from deposing him on January 14, 2011. Dckt. Nos. 72, 73.
The purpose of a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 26(c) is to protect a party "from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). To obtain a protective order, the party resisting discovery or seeking limitations must show good cause for its issuance. Id. "For good cause to exist, the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted." Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). "Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test." Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff requests the protective order to prevent "annoyance, oppression, [and] undue burden," yet presents no specific reasoning as to why being deposed would cause these results. See Dckt. No. 73 at 2. Plaintiff has failed to show good cause to justify a protective order, thus the motions are denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motions for a protective order (Dckt. Nos. 72, 73) are denied. Counsel for defendants shall provide a copy of this order to plaintiff at the deposition on January 14, 2011.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.