United States District Court, D. Montana, Butte Division
Jeremiah C. Lynch United States Magistrate Judge.
William Nordholm, a state prisoner proceeding in forma
pauperis and without counsel, has filed a Motion for Copies
and Request to Extend the Scheduling Order (Doc. 22) and a
Motion to Quash Defendants' Subpoena to Montana State
Prison (Doc. 23). The motions will be granted.
Motion for Copies
first motion, Nordholm seeks copies from the Court's
docket at no cost to him. (Doc. 22.) He contends that due to
his prison transfer he has been separated from his set of
copies of documents in this case and cannot afford copies of
his legal filings.
these circumstances and in order to move this case forward,
the Court will grant the motion and direct the Clerk of Court
to provide copies to Nordholm of the requested filings. No.
additional copies will be allowed without payment as required
by the Clerk's Office.
Motion for Extension
light of his inability to access his legal documents,
Nordholm requests that the deadlines set forth in the
scheduling order be extended by 90 days. (Doc. 22.)
Defendants do not oppose the extension. (Doc. 24.) The motion
will be granted.
Motion to Quash
to Nordholm, Defendants subpoenaed Montana State Prison to
produce, “[a]ny and all prison intake documentation and
reports, as well as treatment, medical, psychological and
billing records that are in the possession custody or control
related to William Nordholm.” Nordholm states that the
production is due on March 26, 2018. (Doc. 23.) He contends
the subpoena seeks privileged or other protected matter. He
calls the subpoena a “fishing expedition.”
Court construes Nordholm's filing as a motion for
protective order and as such it will be granted. Pursuant to
Federal Civil Procedure Rule 26(c), a court may for
“good cause” issue a protective order “to
protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . ”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1). “The burden is upon the party
seeking the [protective] order to ‘show good cause'
by demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the
discovery.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d
1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). This burden can be met by showing
that the sought after discovery is irrelevant. Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(b)(2)(C)(iii) (“the court must limit the frequency
or extent of discovery . . . if it determines that . . .
“the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit”). “The compulsion
of production of irrelevant information is an inherently
undue burden” for which a protective order may issue.
Jimenez v. City of Chicago, 733 F.Supp.2d 1268, 1273
(W. D. Wash. 2010) (citing Compaq Computer Corp. v.
Packard Bell Elecs., 163 F.R.D. 329, 335-36
(N.D.Cal.1995)); Monte H. Greenawalt Revocable Trust v.
Brown, 2013 WL 6844760, *3 (D.Nev. Dec.19, 2013)
(“Discovery requests seeking irrelevant information are
inherently undue and burdensome”); Ginena v. Alaska
Airlines, Inc., No. 04cv1304, 2011 WL 4749104, *1
(D.Nev. Oct.6, 2011) (“If discovery sought is not
relevant, the court should restrict discovery by issuing a
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the
scope of discovery is as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount
in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant
information, the parties' resources, the importance of
the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden
or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not
be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed.R. Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Nordholm raises claims regarding
Defendants' policy of charging a booking and bonding fee
(Count I), conspiracy to bring false charges (Count II), and
retaliation (Counts III, IV). (Amended Complaint, Doc. 9.)
The Court fails to see how Nordholm's medical and
psychological records from the prison where he was detained
after his incarceration in Anaconda-Deer Lodge County has any
relevancy to the parties claims and defenses in this matter.
light of the short time period prior to the production of the
documents at issue, the Court will grant the motion subject
to reservice of the subpoena should Defendants make the
appropriate showing of relevancy.
upon the foregoing, the Court ...