B.W. v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

E.D. Missouri

B.W. v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

DecidedDecember 13, 2019

Docket4:18-cv-01025

StatusUnknown

This text of B.W. v. City of St. Louis, Missouri (B.W. v. City of St. Louis, Missouri) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

B.W. v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, (E.D. Mo. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

B.W., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:18CV1025 HEA ) CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, ) et al. ) ) Defendants, )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order [Doc. No. 75]. Defendant has file opposition to the Motion. Plaintiff has filed a reply. The motion is denied. BACKGROUND The primary reason referenced as a basis for this court to grant the requested relief is that Plaintiff will be providing a deposition in a criminal case on December 16, 2019, the day prior to the setting date for the deposition in this case. December 17, 2019 was discussed and seemingly agreed as the date for the deposition in this case. When a party seeks a protective order, “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from ... undue burden or expense,

− 1 − including one or more of the following ... “(B) specifying terms, including time and place or the allocation of expenses, for the disclosure or discovery;....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The burden is on the movant to show the “good cause” required for issuance of the protective order. Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Mfg. Co., 481 F.2d 1204, 1212 (8th Cir. 1973). “To make this showing, the moving party cannot rely on broad or conclusory allegations of harm.” Northbrook Digital, LLC v. Vendio Servs., Inc., 625 F. Supp. 2d 728, 757 (D. Minn. 2008) (citing Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 102 n.16 (1981)). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate “good cause” where the setting date was at the suggestion and agreement of Plaintiff. CONCLUSION Based on the record and the memoranda herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion Protective Order [Doc. No. 75] is DENIED. Dated this 13th day of December, 2019.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

B.W., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:18CV1025 HEA ) CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, ) et al. ) ) Defendants, )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order [Doc. No. 75]. Defendant has file opposition to the Motion. Plaintiff has filed a reply. The motion is denied. BACKGROUND The primary reason referenced as a basis for this court to grant the requested relief is that Plaintiff will be providing a deposition in a criminal case on December 16, 2019, the day prior to the setting date for the deposition in this case. December 17, 2019 was discussed and seemingly agreed as the date for the deposition in this case. When a party seeks a protective order, “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from ... undue burden or expense,

− 1 − including one or more of the following ... “(B) specifying terms, including time and place or the allocation of expenses, for the disclosure or discovery;....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The burden is on the movant to show the “good cause” required for issuance of the protective order. Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Mfg. Co., 481 F.2d 1204, 1212 (8th Cir. 1973). “To make this showing, the moving party cannot rely on broad or conclusory allegations of harm.” Northbrook Digital, LLC v. Vendio Servs., Inc., 625 F. Supp. 2d 728, 757 (D. Minn. 2008) (citing Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 102 n.16 (1981)). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate “good cause” where the setting date was at the suggestion and agreement of Plaintiff. CONCLUSION Based on the record and the memoranda herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion Protective Order [Doc. No. 75] is DENIED. Dated this 13th day of December, 2019.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

B.W. v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bw-v-city-of-st-louis-missouri-moed-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack