Laserfiche WebLink
Case 2:07-cv-00660-�•*-EFB Document 50 Filed 00!6/2008 Page 2 of 5 <br /> 1 The present dispute is rooted in plaintiff's unwillingness to sign, and submit to the court <br /> 2 for approval, a proposed stipulated protective order. Defendants, in effect, have delayed <br /> 3 discovery until such time as plaintiff agrees to the terms of the proposed order. Conditioning <br /> 4 response to properly served discovery requests on another party's willingness to stipulate to a <br /> 5 protective order is inappropriate. If a party believes that it must seek a protective order and is <br /> 6 unable to obtain the other parties' consent for a stipulated request for such an order, the <br /> 7 appropriate response is a timely motion, not a unilateral refusal to provide discovery responses. <br /> 8 Defendants' position is not well-taken for the additional reason that they have no entitlement to a <br /> 9 blanket protective order, nor do they have a unilateral right to demand that plaintiff stipulate to <br /> 10 one. Such orders are, by nature, overinclusive. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 <br /> 11 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[A] party seeking the protection of the court via a blanket <br /> 12 protective order typically does not make the `good cause' showing required by Rule 26(c) with <br /> 13 respect to any particular document."). Further, as discussed below, defendants have failed to <br /> 14 establish good cause for issuance of a protective order with respect to the interrogatories <br /> 15 propounded by plaintiff. Accordingly, defendants' motion is denied. <br /> 16 Turning to plaintiffs motions,the court grants both. Plaintiff served a request to inspect <br /> 17 Lima Ranch pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(2), for purposes of testing the soil, sediment and <br /> 18 groundwater. Plaintiff intends to take samples of each in order to show not only that nitrates <br /> 19 exist in the groundwater, but also in order to trace the nitrates to defendants' ranching <br /> 20 operations. In particular, plaintiff believes that antibiotics, hormones, nutritional supplements, <br /> 21 pesticides and fertilizers used in defendants' ranching operations will appear together with <br /> 22 nitrates in the allegedly contaminated groundwater. Plaintiff argues that the presence of such <br /> 23 substances in the groundwater will link Lima Ranch to the alleged nitrate contamination. <br /> 24 To this end, plaintiff has served five narrowly-tailored interrogatories asking defendants <br /> 25 to identify all antibiotics,hormones and nutritional supplements administered to livestock at <br /> 26 Lima Ranch from 1990 to present. They also ask defendants to identify all fertilizers and <br /> 2 <br />