(PC) Curry v. Rollin

E.D. California

(PC) Curry v. Rollin

DecidedJanuary 22, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-00791

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Curry v. Rollin ((PC) Curry v. Rollin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Curry v. Rollin, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RYAN INDIANA CURRY, No. 2:23-cv-00791-TLN-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 T. ROLLAND, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks a protective order limiting defendants’ access to his prison central file. 19 ECF No. 21. Defendants oppose the motion. ECF No. 23. 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) permits a party to seek a protective order relieving 21 her of her duty to respond to a discovery request upon a showing of good cause. “For good cause 22 to exist [under Rule 26(c)], the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific 23 prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Phillips v. GMC, 307 F.3d 1206, 24 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or 25 articulated reasoning, do not satisfy” Rule 26(c)’s “good cause” requirement. Beckman Indus., 26 Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting with approval Cipollone v. 27 Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986)). District courts have broad discretion to 28 decide when a protective order is appropriate and to determine the order’s scope. Phillips, 307 1 | F.3d at 1211. 2 Plaintiff appears to be most troubled that defendants should have access to his disciplinary 3 | records. Defendants argue that they are statutorily entitled to access the file in its entirety and 4 | refuse to agree to any limitations on access to the file, although they fail to explain how the 5 | disciplinary records are relevant to the case. Nonetheless, plaintiff has not provided the court 6 | with specific examples or articulated reasoning supporting his request for a protective order. 7 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a protective order (ECF No. 21) 8 || is DENIED without prejudice. Lr Ld 10 | Dated: January 22, 2024 Za "belied 7 eLACL i EDMUND F. BRENNAN 1] UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RYAN INDIANA CURRY, No. 2:23-cv-00791-TLN-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 T. ROLLAND, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks a protective order limiting defendants’ access to his prison central file. 19 ECF No. 21. Defendants oppose the motion. ECF No. 23. 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) permits a party to seek a protective order relieving 21 her of her duty to respond to a discovery request upon a showing of good cause. “For good cause 22 to exist [under Rule 26(c)], the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific 23 prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Phillips v. GMC, 307 F.3d 1206, 24 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or 25 articulated reasoning, do not satisfy” Rule 26(c)’s “good cause” requirement. Beckman Indus., 26 Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting with approval Cipollone v. 27 Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986)). District courts have broad discretion to 28 decide when a protective order is appropriate and to determine the order’s scope. Phillips, 307 1 | F.3d at 1211. 2 Plaintiff appears to be most troubled that defendants should have access to his disciplinary 3 | records. Defendants argue that they are statutorily entitled to access the file in its entirety and 4 | refuse to agree to any limitations on access to the file, although they fail to explain how the 5 | disciplinary records are relevant to the case. Nonetheless, plaintiff has not provided the court 6 | with specific examples or articulated reasoning supporting his request for a protective order. 7 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a protective order (ECF No. 21) 8 || is DENIED without prejudice. Lr Ld 10 | Dated: January 22, 2024 Za "belied 7 eLACL i EDMUND F. BRENNAN 1] UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Beckman Industries, Inc. Smithkline Beckman, and Stauffer Chemical Company, Intervenors-Appellees v. International Insurance Company, Beckman Industries, Inc. Smithkline Beckman, and Monsanto Company Reichhold Limited Fmc Corporation Bridgestone/firestone, Intervenors-Appellees v. International Insurance Company

966 F.2d 470 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.

785 F.2d 1108 (Third Circuit, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Curry v. Rollin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-curry-v-rollin-caed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack