Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ioane v. Spjute

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 27, 2014

MICHALE IOANE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
KENT SPJUTE, et al., Defendants.

ORDER RE. DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A DISCOVERY PROTECTIVE ORDER Docs. 223, 235[1]

GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.

INTRODUCTION[2]

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Michael S. Ioane and Shelly J. Ioane's (collectively, "Plaintiffs") motion for a protective order. Doc. 223. Defendants United States of America, Kent R. Spjute, Jean Nole, Jeff Hodges, Brian Applegate, and Michelle M. Casarez (collectively, "Defendants") filed an opposition and Plaintiffs have filed a reply. Doc. 224, 234. The motion was submitted on the papers pursuant to Local Rule 230(l) and this Court's order issued on April 9, 2014. Doc. 232. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

A. Summary of the Parties' Positions

Plaintiffs seek a protective order to protect "tax information and medical information." Doc. 223 at 2. Plaintiffs generally state that Defendants have requested in discovery, evidence of Plaintiffs' financial losses as well as medical evidence pertaining to their mental and physical injuries related to their claims in this case. Doc. 223 at 2. Plaintiffs further state that they "have evidence to produce" but "are waiting for some sort of protective order to assure confidential and private medical and financial remain that way [sic]; to the extent reasonable." Doc. 223 at 2. Plaintiffs assert that they "wish all financial and medical information to be under seal and that the court admonishes defendants about privacy issues regarding same." Doc. 223 at 2. This is essentially the sum total of Plaintiffs' one-page motion.

Defendants respond that Plaintiffs' motion fails to make the good cause showing required for the granting of a protective order, and also violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court's Local Rules, and this Court's Scheduling Order. Doc. 224 at 5.

Plaintiffs do not provide additional arguments or authority in support of their motion for a protective order in their reply.

B. Applicable Legal Standards

Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the scope of discovery, unless limited by court order, is as follows:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.... The information sought need not be admissible at trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

A party from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:

A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending...The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.

Rule 26(c) was "enacted as a safeguard for the protection of parties and witnesses in view of the broad discovery rights authorized in Rule 26(b)." United States v. CBS, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.