Opinion
1:08-cv-00059-AWI-GBC (PC) Doc. 40 Doc. 43
01-17-2012
GREGORY LYNN NORWOOD, Plaintiff, v. JAMES E. TILTON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
REVISED DISCOVERY DEADLINE: MARCH 16, 2012
REVISED DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE: MAY 25, 2012
I. Procedural History
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 6, 2011, the Court issued a scheduling order, establishing a discovery deadline of January 6, 2012 and a dispositive motion deadline of March 15, 2012. Doc. 32. On October 13, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for a protective order. Doc. 40. On October 25, 2011, the Court granted Defendants' motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's interrogatories. Doc. 42. On December 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the scheduling order and extend the discovery deadline sixty days. Doc. 43. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants' motion for protective order, and Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff's motion to modify the scheduling order. This matter is deem submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
II. Analysis
Plaintiff moves to modify the scheduling order to extend discovery sixty (60) days. Doc. 43. Since Defendants did not respond and the Court has provided Defendants an extension to respond to Plaintiff's discovery, the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion to extend the discovery deadline. With this modification, the Court deems it necessary to also extend the dispositive motions deadline an additional sixty days.
Defendants move for a protective order to redact the names and identifying information of confidential informants. Doc. 40. Defendants state that this is necessary to protect safety and maintain institutional security. Id. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides, in part, that "[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense...." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Plaintiff did not submit a response to Defendants' motion. Therefore, Defendants' request for a protective order is granted, and Defendants may redact documents disclosed in discovery to protect the safety and security of the institution.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to modify scheduling order is GRANTED;
2. The revised discovery deadline is March 16, 2012;
3. The revised dispositive motion deadline is May 25, 2012;
4. Defendants' motion for a protective order is GRANTED; and
5. Defendants may redact the names, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation numbers, and other information that could reveal the identity of the confidential informants from the lockdown memoranda responsive to Plaintiff's request for production of documents.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE