Jones v. McElroy

Full title: RODNEY WAYNE JONES, Plaintiff, v. C. W. McELROY, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 10, 2015

2:13-cv-1375 GEB CKD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2015)

Opinion

RODNEY WAYNE JONES, Plaintiff, v. C. W. McELROY, et al., Defendants. No. 2:13-cv-1375 GEB CKD P United States District Court, E.D. California. August 10, 2015

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff seeks a protective order exempting him from producing certain documents to defendants. (ECF No. 54.) Defendants have requested that plaintiff produce these documents at his deposition pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(b)(2) and 34. ( Id., Exs. A, B & D.) Plaintiff argues that the requests are untimely.

         In moving for a protective order, plaintiff must make a good cause showing that without it, he would be significantly impeded from litigating this action. "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 ex re. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). The focus of the harm in protective order situations is harm to the ability to litigate, not irreparable harm to the plaintiff. See Pope v. Garcia, 2012 WL 1552431, *3 (E.D. Cal. 2012).

         Here, plaintiff has not shown good cause for a protective order.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request for protective order (ECF No. 54) is denied.