Opinion
No. C11-02426 HRL
04-18-2012
SHAHZAD AHMED, Plaintiff, v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, Defendant.
NOT FOR CITATION
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
[Re: Docket No. 46]
Pro se plaintiff Shahzad Ahmed sues for alleged employment discrimination. Among other things, he asserts that he was constructively discharged from his employment with defendant Juniper Networks.
Ahmed was deposed on March 16, 2012, but refused to answer certain questions on the ground that they sought irrelevant information. This court is told that those questions concerned Ahmed's current employment and benefits, including the circumstances and timing of his decision to accept a position with another company and his resignation from Juniper Networks. On April 6, 2012, plaintiff filed a "Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order to Limit Scope of Deposition" (Dkt. No. 46). In it, he essentially asks this court for an order prohibiting defendant from inquiring about those matters. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff's motion is denied.
Preliminarily, the court notes that, having granted plaintiff's request for referral to the Federal Pro Bono Project (Dkt. No. 45), all proceedings in this matter were stayed as of March 23, 2012. In any event, plaintiff failed to comply with this court's Standing Order re Civil Discovery Disputes, which requires discovery-related matters to be brought before the court by a Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) rather than a noticed motion. Indeed, this is the second time plaintiff has been admonished to comply with that standing order. (See Dkt. No. 40). Although Ahmed presently is representing himself, that does not excuse him from complying with rules that all litigants are obliged to follow. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1987) (finding that pro se litigants must follow the same rules as represented parties).
Ordinarily, the court would require plaintiff to proceed with a DDJR. Nevertheless, because this particular discovery dispute appears to be straightforward, the court rules on his motion as follows:
A party may not refuse to answer deposition questions based on relevance objections. See FED. R. CIV. P. 30(c)(2) ("A person may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3)."). Here, the court finds that discovery pertaining to plaintiff's resignation from Juniper Networks and his subsequent employment with another company is relevant at least to plaintiff's assertion that he was constructively discharged and to the potential measure of his claimed damages. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1) ("Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense," and "the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.").
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for a protective order is denied. On the record presented, the court believes that this order disposes of this discovery dispute in its entirety. However, if this order does not fully address all of plaintiff's concerns with respect to the deposition questions at issue, the denial is without prejudice to bring the matter to the court's attention at an appropriate time, in the proper manner, and only if good faith meet-and-confer negotiations fail to resolve the dispute.
SO ORDERED
_______________
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5:11-cv-02426-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Maureen K. Bogue mkb@millerlawgroup.com, ny@millerlawgroup.com
Michele Ballard Miller mbm@millerlawgroup.com, clb@millerlawgroup.com, tew@millerlawgroup.com
Noah A. Levin nal@millerlawgroup.com, pal@millerlawgroup.com
Shahzad Ahmed Shaz7600@yahoo.com