Troupe v. Washington State Penitentiary, 13-5028-EFS (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20140520b71
Visitors: 12
Filed: May 19, 2014
Latest Update: May 19, 2014
Summary: ORDER OF PROTECTION EDWARD F. SHEA, District Judge. I. BASIS This matter came before the Court without oral argument on the Motion For Protective Order and Limitation Re Discovery. The Defendants were represented by Amy Clemmons, Assistant Attorney General. The Plaintiff represented himself, pro se. The Court, having considered the pleadings on file and argument of counsel in written briefs, finds good cause to enter a protective order restricting contacts by Plaintiff and discovery in the li
Summary: ORDER OF PROTECTION EDWARD F. SHEA, District Judge. I. BASIS This matter came before the Court without oral argument on the Motion For Protective Order and Limitation Re Discovery. The Defendants were represented by Amy Clemmons, Assistant Attorney General. The Plaintiff represented himself, pro se. The Court, having considered the pleadings on file and argument of counsel in written briefs, finds good cause to enter a protective order restricting contacts by Plaintiff and discovery in the lit..
More
ORDER OF PROTECTION
EDWARD F. SHEA, District Judge.
I. BASIS
This matter came before the Court without oral argument on the Motion For Protective Order and Limitation Re Discovery. The Defendants were represented by Amy Clemmons, Assistant Attorney General. The Plaintiff represented himself, pro se. The Court, having considered the pleadings on file and argument of counsel in written briefs, finds good cause to enter a protective order restricting contacts by Plaintiff and discovery in the litigation as set out below.
II. FINDINGS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b) and (c), the Court finds that Plaintiff has engaged in conduct with the intent to annoy, embarrass or oppress the Defendants and has not acted in a professional manner during phone contacts with counsel relating to the pending litigations in federal court. Good cause exists to limit the plaintiff's contacts to written communications only due to his behavior and past pattern of conduct as set out in prior injunctive orders by other courts.
III. ORDER
NOW THEREFORE, based upon the above Findings of Fact, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff shall be limited to discovery within the parameters of the court rules and relevant to the pending litigation. Plaintiff has restrictions on requests for public records as indicated in injunctive orders entered by other courts. The litigations filed in federal court shall not be utilized as an alternative means to request public records not otherwise available to Plaintiff due to the prior orders of injunctive relief. Plaintiff shall not seek to obtain public records in this litigation absent an agreement between the parties that the records are relevant to the pending litigation or the entry of an order by this Court that the records are discoverable in the pending litigation;
2) Plaintiff shall not make any requests for public records relating to any of the named Defendants, Kennith R. Brodhead; Linda W. Belanger; Kevin Walker, And Christopher Bowman, Cause No. CV-13-5038-EFS; Walter End, Cause No. CV-13-5036-EFS; of Katrina Suckow, Bonnie Klahn, Thomas Roe, and Dana O. Fayette, Cause No. 13-5038-EFS, or make any requests for public records on any employees of the Washington State Attorney General's office;
3) Plaintiff shall not maintain any personal addresses or personal information on any of the named Defendants, and Plaintiff shall not disseminate in any manner any personal information on the named Defendants in the pending litigations;
4) Plaintiff shall not contact or attempt to contact any named Defendant directly, by mail, or through any third party;
5) Plaintiff shall not solicit third parties, relatives, or others to make any contact or requests prohibited by this order on his behalf.
6) Any requests relating to the pending litigations shall be made through written discovery requests made to counsel for the Defendants as permitted by the court rules.
7) The court orders that Defense counsel is not required to confer in person or by phone with Mr. Troupe. In the event a discovery dispute occurs between the parties or the court rules require communication between the parties, any obligation to confer under CR26(i) or other rules shall take place by the exchange of written correspondence. The responding party shall have at least 14 days to respond in writing.
8) Plaintiff shall limit contact with Defense counsel to issues related to the pending litigations. Any new issues Plaintiff has with the Department of Corrections not related to the litigation shall be addressed directly to the appropriate channels within the Department of Corrections.
9) This order shall apply to all actions filed by Plaintiff Troupe in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Washington. Violation of this order by Plaintiff can result in sanctions to be determined by the Court and potentially including the dismissal of the litigation for misuse of the litigation process.
Source: Leagle
