Garcia v. Currie et al, No. 2:2013cv00226 - Document 20 (S.D. Tex. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER granting in part 18 Motion for Protective Order.(Signed by Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION PEDRO TIEMPO GARCIA, Plaintiff, VS. G. CURRIE, et al, Defendants. § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-226 § § § § OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Defendants have filed a motion for a protective order (D.E. 18), seeking protection from the burden of discovery requests in this case. Defendants have raised the issue of qualified immunity in their answer; therefore they are not be required to answer discovery requests that do not deal directly with the issue of qualified immunity. Babb v. Dorman, 33 F.3d 472, 477 (5th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the motion for a protective order (D.E. 18) is granted in part. Defendants are not required to respond to any discovery requests except for those directly related to the issue of qualified immunity. After reviewing Plaintiff s discovery requests (D.E. 17), it does not appear that any of the information he seeks relates to the issue of 1/2 qualified immunity, and Defendants are not required to respond to those discovery requests.1 ORDERED this 25th day of November, 2013. ___________________________________ B. JANICE ELLINGTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1 Plaintiff is reminded that according to the Local Rules for the Southern District of Texas, discovery and discovery requests are not filed with the court. LR5.4. 2/2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
