Opinion
22-cv-02026-JSC
05-06-2024
JOEL TOLBERT, Plaintiff, v. ANTIOCH POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
RE: DKT. NO. 72
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This is a civil rights action filed by a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney. Defendants are the Antioch Police Department (“APD”), APD Chief Allan Cantando, and APD Officers James Colley and James Perkinson. Now pending before the Court is Defendants' second motion for a protective order. (ECF No. 72.) Plaintiff was ordered to show cause, on or before April 26, 2024, why the Court's model “Stipulated Protective Order for Standard Litigation” (a copy of which was mailed to him) should not be entered. (ECF No. 74 at 2:18-20.) Plaintiff has not done so. Accordingly, the motion for a protective order is GRANTED. The protective order is entered separately.
Plaintiff also did not notify the Court he agrees to the order, which he had the option to do. (ECF No. 74 at 2:18-20.)
On April 29, 2024, the Court received Plaintiff's “response” to Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 75.) Although the motion for sanctions was denied on April 11, 2024, the Court has nevertheless reviewed Plaintiff's “response” and concludes it does not change the Court's ruling on the motion. Additionally, Plaintiff states he has not received all the discovery he requested. (Id. at 3:11; 75.1 at ¶ 10.) The Court will not act on any discovery dispute unless a party files a motion to compel that includes “a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1). Defendants are reminded they shall produce paper copies of any discovery documents (excluding video or audio recordings) because Plaintiff cannot access electronic documents. (See ECF No. 69.)
Plaintiff indicates the postal service initially returned his response to him as undeliverable, and he re-mailed it to the Court. (ECF No. 76 at 1.)
This Order disposes of Docket No. 72.
IT IS SO ORDERED.