United States District Court, D. Montana, Helena Division
KEITH STRONG, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Darren Goldsmith has filed a Response to Spectrum's Request for Production of Documents (which has been construed as a motion for protective order) (Doc. 42) and a Motion for Access to Legal Materials (Doc. 55). Mr. Goldsmith failed to comply with Local Rules 7.1 and 26 and his motions lack merit. The motions will be denied.
Mr. Goldsmith also filed a Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas (Doc. 43). Because he has since withdrawn the motion (Doc. 59), it will not be addressed in this Order.
Mr. Goldsmith's Complaint presents a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, giving rise to federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The case is assigned to District Court Judge Donald Molloy and was referred to this Court for pretrial proceedings. See L.R. 72.2(a)(1).
Federal and Local Rules
Mr. Goldsmith's motions should be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's Local Rules. Local Rule 7.1(c)(1) provides that "[t]he text of the motion must state that other parties have been contacted and state whether any party objects to the motion." Mr. Goldsmith's motions do not indicate that he contacted opposing counsel prior to filing his motions.
Additionally, Mr. Goldsmith seeks a protective order which requires a "certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action." Fed.R.Civ. P. 26(c).
Mr. Goldsmith received these rules with the Court's May 5, 2014 Scheduling Order (Doc. 23). He has blatantly failed to comply with them. Any future motions filed without first complying with these rules will be summarily denied.
Response to Spectrum's Request for Production of Documents
Mr. Goldsmith's Response to Spectrum's Request for Production of Documents has been construed as a motion for a protective order. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." "Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). But the right to access information is not absolute, and "[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)(1). "The party opposing disclosure has the burden of proving good cause, ' which requires a showing that specific prejudice or harm will result' if the protective order is not granted." In re Catholic Archbishop of Portland Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) ( quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003)).
Mr. Goldsmith alleges that on June 27, 2014, Defendant Dutton submitted requests for the production of documents to Defendant Spectrum seeking "all information in your possession regarding plaintiff." Mr. Goldsmith submits that some of this information may be federally protected under HIPPA and/or other privacy laws. He alleges the documents are highly confidential and are mostly Department of Veteran Affairs medical records that are, for the most part, not relevant to the case at hand. (Doc. 42 at 1.) He also alleges that Defendant Dutton did not particularly describe the information sought in violation of Rule 34(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Goldsmith includes allegations that ...