Tolbert v. Colley
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-02026
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Tolbert v. Colley, Judge Corley denied Defendants’ protective-order motion without prejudice because they had not met and conferred as required.
The ruling affected Defendants’ request for protection of confidential discovery documents and left open the possibility of a renewed motion after the required efforts to confer with Tolbert.
What happened
Tolbert v. Colley is a civil-rights case brought by a California prisoner who is representing himself. He served discovery requests, and the Defendants asked the court to protect confidential documents.
The court said Defendants had to show good cause and certify that they had tried to resolve the dispute with Tolbert without court action. They did not provide the required certification or explain efforts to communicate with him by telephone, video, or mail.
Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley denied the motion without prejudice. The Defendants may file a renewed motion by March 22, 2024, after trying to meet and confer with Tolbert and explaining any disagreement over a proposed protective order.
The detailed version
- Tolbert v. Colley · No. 3:22-cv-02026
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Feb. 20, 2024
Background
Joel Tolbert, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, filed this civil-rights action. Tolbert served discovery requests on Defendants. Defendants moved for a protective order seeking protections for confidential documents.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) allows a court to issue a protective order when the person seeking protection shows good cause. Good cause requires a showing that specific harm or prejudice would result without protection. The rule also requires the motion to include a certification that the moving party, in good faith, conferred or tried to confer with the affected parties to resolve the dispute without court action.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Defendants had not included the required certification and had not indicated that they had conferred with Tolbert. Defendants stated that they could not informally meet and confer because Tolbert was incarcerated. But they did not describe any efforts to arrange a telephone or video conference, identify any regulations or prison rules that prevented communication with defense counsel, or explain why they could not confer by mail.
The court denied the motion for a protective order without prejudice. If Defendants cannot obtain and file a stipulated protective order after meeting and conferring with Tolbert, they may file a renewed motion on or before March 22, 2024. Any renewed motion must include the Rule 26(c)(1) certification, or explain why meeting and conferring was not possible, and must attach Defendants’ proposed protective order and explain why the parties could not agree. The order resolved docket number 63.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.