Adams v. Craig Alan Koenig
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-08545
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Shelton Adams v. Craig Alan Koenig, Judge Tigar ordered a protective order and required defendants to answer special interrogatories within fourteen days.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Shelton Adams, et al. v. Craig Alan Koenig, et al. The defendants must prepare the protective-order submission and respond to the Special Interrogatories within fourteen days; the parties must address the protective order by December 5, 2025 if they can agree.
What happened
In Shelton Adams, et al. v. Craig Alan Koenig, et al., the defendants asked the court to issue a protective order, while the plaintiffs opposed the request. The court found that failing to issue an order would cause specific harm and that the defendants had shown good cause.
The court ordered that a protective order modeled on one from another case be used. It directed the parties to file a jointly agreed order by December 5, 2025, if possible; otherwise, the defendants must submit a case-specific proposed order for approval. The court also denied the defendants' request to extend the deadline for responding to the plaintiffs' special interrogatories and required responses within fourteen days.
Judge Tigar was identified as the judge who must decide whether to extend the February 13, 2026 deadline for identifying bellwether plaintiffs. The order did not decide whether the defendants' interrogatory responses would be sufficient, and it allowed supplementation as required.
The detailed version
- Adams v. Craig Alan Koenig · No. 4:21-cv-08545
- Jon Tigar
- Nov. 24, 2025
Background
The court held a November 4, 2025 hearing about whether to issue a protective order. At that hearing, the court stated that a protective order was warranted and directed the parties to discuss its terms. The defendants later sought entry of a protective order, and the plaintiffs opposed the request.
The defendants also sought additional time to respond to the plaintiffs' Special Interrogatories. The defendants' responses had been due November 14, 2025. The plaintiffs opposed extending that deadline and argued that the February 13, 2026 deadline for identifying bellwether plaintiffs was important. The defendants sought additional discovery time but opposed extending the February 13 deadline.
Rulings
The court found that the defendants had shown good cause for a protective order and that specific prejudice or harm would result if no order were issued. After considering the parties' interests and the plaintiffs' objections, the court ordered that a protective order modeled on the order used in Williams v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, No. 21-cv-09586, be entered in this case.
By December 5, 2025, the parties were directed to file a stipulated protective order if they could agree on one. If they could not, the defendants were directed to submit a case-specific protective order for the court's approval, using the other case's order as a model and removing references to a stipulation while including language stating that the court had found good cause.
The court found no good cause to move the original deadline for the Special Interrogatories. It required the defendants to respond within fourteen days of the order. The court did not decide whether any response would be sufficient and stated that the defendants could supplement their responses as needed and required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1).
The court stated that the dispute over the February 13, 2026 bellwether-plaintiff deadline could be decided only by Judge Tigar. The order did not resolve that deadline dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.