Opinion
Case No. 02:04-cv-121.
February 10, 2006
ORDER
Defendant Robert Anderson ("Anderson") seeks a protective order, prohibiting the United States from taking his deposition. Anderson asserts that to permit his deposition to go forward without benefit of "pre-deposition discovery right" would necessarily result in his giving incomplete or inadequate answers. The government objects to Anderson's motion for protective order, stating that all relevant documents were attached to the complaint served on Anderson on January 25, 2005 or are available for his review. Further, the United States suggests that the rules contemplate simultaneous discovery and to grant Anderson's request for a protective order would amount to a stay of discovery applicable only to the United States. Finally, the United States asserts that Anderson has wholly failed to establish "good cause" for a protective order pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The grant or denial of a protective order is within the sound discretion of the trial court and only an abuse of that discretion would be a basis for reversal. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(c) requires that "good cause" be shown for a protective order to be issued, and the burden is upon the movant to show the necessity of the order, "which contemplates `a particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.'" General Dynamic Corporation v. Selb Manufacturing Company, 481 F.2d 1204, 1212 (8th Cir. 1973). "Such determination must also include a consideration of the relative hardship to the non-moving party should the protective order be granted. Id. (citations omitted).
The court finds that Anderson has failed to demonstrate good cause for a protective order. The United States has given him copies of the mortgages it seeks to foreclose, as well as the promissory notes and other relevant documents. It has made available for inspection the FSA's administrative loan file. Further, Anderson has not requested, nor has the government refused to provide, any other relevant documentation concerning this foreclosure action. Therefore, Anderson's asserted reason for the protective order, inability to prepare, is without merit. Defendant Robert G. Anderson's Motion for a Protective Order (Doc. #22) is DENIED.
The United States is entitled to move forward with the prosecution of this action by again noticing the deposition of Robert G. Anderson and Carren L. Anderson, and undertaking additional discovery appropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.