BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™
Downloaded From www.TextBookDiscrimination.com
SELL YOUR OWN TEMPLATES (help others get the justice that they deserve)
BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

[courtDistrict], [courtDivision]

[plfName]	)	Case No (LT)
Plaintiff	)	[caseNo]
)
v.	)
)
[defName]	)
Defendant	)

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiff, [plfName], on this [D] day of [MMM] [YYYY], respectfully asks this Honorable Court to deny ‘[poMotion]’ (hereinafter “That Motion”).

Key Points:

Grounds	Relevant [individual/organization]; 3-part test

Table of Contents:

Context	2nd Page
Response	3rd Page
Certificates	7th Page
Affidavit	8th Page

Background:	Plaintiff propounded discovery on a non-party

Problem:	Defendant moved to prohibit all discovery on the non-party

Request:	This Court permits discovery on the non-party

Rule 26(b)(1) | Fed. R. Civ. P. | Discovery Scope and Limits

“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”

Rule 26(c)(2) | Fed R. Civ. P. | Protective Orders

“If a motion for a protective order is wholly or partly denied, the court may, on just terms, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery”

Rule 45(d)(3) | Fed. R. Civ. P. | Subpoena Enforcement

“(A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required...

(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required...”

Precedence

2:18-cv-00826-JLB-NPM	- USFLMD (8/17/20)

8:19-cv-01275-SCB-PDB	- USFLMD (9/15/20)

USFLMD recently denied motions for protective orders

Abbreviations

[C###]	-	Paragraph ### from The Complaint2/
[M###]	-	Page ### from That Motion3/
[S###]	-	Page ### from The Subpoena4/
USFLMD	-	US District Court, Florida, Middle District

RESPONSE

Substantive Facts

Plaintiff sued Defendant for employment discrimination on several bases (under 42 USC §1981, 42 USC §2000, §760 FS, etc.).

The allegations in his complaint that are most pertinent to this discovery dispute involve:

[adverseAct001] ([CXXX]);

[adverseAct002] ([CXXY]); and

[adverseAct003] ([CXXZ]);

[para001]

[para002]

[para003]

Procedural Facts

On [MMMa] [Da], [YYYYa], [plaintiffPropoundedDiscovery].

On [MMMb] [Db], [YYYYb], [defendantMovedToQuash].

[para004]

[para005]

[para006]

Direct Rebuttal

Plaintiff hereby reasserts his need to propound discovery on [nonPartyName].

That Motion asked this Court to prohibit discovery on [nonPartyName] altogether; saying the following:

“[defQuote001]”

Conclusory Statements Fall Short

Defendant’s boilerplate objection falls short of the mark. It is well established that generalized objections that discovery requests are vague (or overly broad) are unacceptable; and will be overruled. As said in the following ruling from Auto-Owners vs SE Floating Docks, 231 FRD 426 (MD Fla. 2005) (also see Bank of NY v Meridien Biao Bank, 171 FRD 135, 143 (SDNY 1997); Panola Land Buyer’s Assn. v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11th Cir. 1985)) (emphasis added):

“the party seeking a protective order has the burden to demonstrate good cause, and must make a ‘particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements’ supporting the need for a protective order.”

Rule 26 Fed. R. Civ. P.

Instead, the Auto-Owners decision pointed to Rule 26(c) Fed. R. Civ. P. for guidance; which says, in pertinent part (emphasis added):

“The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense”

[para007]

[para008]

[para009]

[para010]:

“[defQuote001]”

[para011]

[para012]

3-Prong Test

The decision in American Standard v Pfizer, 828 F. 2d 734 (Fed. Cir. 1987) created a three-part test for use in reviewing motions for protective orders (emphasis added).

“One seeking a protective order under [Rule 26(c)] must establish that the information sought is confidential... ...Having shown the information sought to be confidential, one seeking a protective order must then demonstrate that disclosure might be harmful... ...[upon satisfying these first two elements], the burden shifts to the party seeking discovery to establish that disclosure of trade secrets and confidential information is relevant and necessary to its case.”

In short, Defendant was required to show that:

it wanted to protect confidential information; and

disclosure of that information would have been harmful;

Then, Plaintiff would have the burden of showing that:

the information was relevant to his case

Afterwards, the Court would weigh the need for the information against the potential injury caused by its disclosure.

In the instant case, Defendant cannot claim that [nonPartyName]’s own discoverable information is being held in Defendant’s confidence. Secondly, Defendant never claimed a right to it (see [RXXX]-[RXXX]). Thus, That Motion falls short on the first prong of the analysis.

Notwithstanding, Defendant would not have been able to quench the second element either. Defendant could not – and did not – claim that [nonPartyName]’s involvement in discovery would bring it harm.

Nevertheless, even assuming the burden could somehow shift to Plaintiff, he has already articulated the need to involve [nonPartyName] in this lawsuit (see That Response, see Affidavit).

Simply put, [nonPartyName] is inextricably linked to this employment discrimination case. Largely because a jury will need to see the disparate ways in which Defendant treated (a) Plaintiff; and (b) different demographic groups.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully asks this Court to deny ‘[poMotion]’.

Dated this [D]th day of [MMM] [YYYY].

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ [plfName]

[plfName], Plaintiff

[plfAddy]

P: [plfPhn]

E: [plfEml]

W: TextBookDiscrimination.com

Get Booked Up on Justice!

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that the size and style of type used in this document is Times New Roman 14-point Font (caption) and Courier New 12-point Font (contents); thus complying with the font requirements of Local Rule 1.05(a).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this [D] day of [MMM] [YYYY], I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Courts by using its online filing page. I also emailed it to the attached service list.

/s/ [plfName]

Endnotes:

1/ The Complaint = “Complaint Against [defName]” (Dkt No. 1).
2/ That Motion = “[poMotion]” (Dkt No. [NN]).
3/ The Subpoena = ‘[issuedSubpoena]’ (Dkt No. [NN]; Exhibit;).

How-To Guide: (interactive)

TextBookDiscrimination.com/Guides/Motions/ProtectiveOrder.html

SERVICE LIST

[defAtt], Esquire ([barNum]) E: [defEml] P: [defPhn] (defendant’s trial lawyers)

PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

[courtDistrict], [courtDivision]

[plfName]	)	Case No (LT)
Plaintiff	)	[caseNo]
)
v.	)
)
[defName]	)
Defendant	)

PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

The affiant, [plfName], swears or affirms as follows:

Background

I am over the age of eighteen (18).

I am a plaintiff in the above-captioned case.

This affidavit is made in good faith.

Familiarity

I have read the Local Rules of Court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Middle District’s Discovery Handbook.

The information in this affidavit is based on my own personal knowledge.

Facts

[pertinentFact001]

[pertinentFact002]

[pertinentFact003]

[pertinentFact004]

[pertinentFact005]

[pertinentFact006]

Verification Under Oath Pursuant to 28 USC §1746

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this [D]th day of [MMM] [YYYY].

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA	[D]/[M]/[YYYY]
[plfName], Plaintiff/Affiant

BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™
Downloaded From www.TextBookDiscrimination.com
SELL YOUR OWN TEMPLATES (help others get the justice that they deserve)
BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™