Opinion
2:24-cv-00408-TL
07-30-2024
JANET SHELLMAN SHERMAN, Plaintiff, v. JAMES A KRUSE et al., Defendants.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Tana Lin United States District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Janet Shellman Sherman's Motion for Protective Order. Dkt. No. 39.
Though the title of the document as it appears on the docket is for a protective order, the filing itself is a request to subpoena “an FBI Law Enforcement Agent.” Dkt. No. 39 at 1. The Court has already denied two attempted pre-discovery subpoena requests in this case and finds that Plaintiff has again failed to demonstrate good cause for allowance of early discovery. See Dkt. No. 34 (July 18, 2024, Order on earlier subpoena motions). Once discovery has begun, Plaintiff will not need to file a motion with the Court for a subpoena but must follow the procedures set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 45(a)(3) as to issuance of the subpoena and Rule 45(a)(4) requiring notice to other parties before service.
For the same reasons stated in the July 18, 2024, Order on earlier subpoena motions, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. No. 39).