1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 Tobias Walton, Case No. 2:24-cv-00111-GMN-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 Scott Daniel Grimes, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Presently before this Court is Plaintiff’s emergency motion for a protective order. ECF 11 No. 46. Defendants opposed. ECF No. 49. No reply is necessary for this Court to resolve the 12 motion. Because Plaintiff has not met his burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), 13 this Court denies the motion. The parties are familiar with the arguments. As a result, this Court 14 incorporates them only as relevant to its order. 15 I. ANALYSIS 16 “A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in 17 the court where the action is pending.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Such protective orders may be 18 sought for a host of different reasons, including “protect[ing] a party or person from annoyance, 19 embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Id. A protective order may be issued 20 only for “good cause.” Id. at 26(c)(1)(A). “For good cause to exist, the party seeking a protective 21 order must show specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Phillips 22 ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp.,

, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002). “Broad 23 allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy 24 the Rule 26(c) test.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1992). 25 On November 7, 2025, the court ordered the deposition of Plaintiff’s treating psychologist 26 to go forward. ECF No. 45. The next day, on November 8, 2025, Defendants noticed the 27 deposition for November 24, 2025. Counsel for Plaintiff immediately explained he was not 1 || available on November 24, 2025 (such that the Rule 45’s “undue burden” principle is 2 || inapplicable). Of note, a mediation is scheduled for November 25, 2025. 3 Rule 30(b)(1) requires reasonable written notice. Reasonableness is not defined in the rule 4 || and Plaintiff does not cite to any case for the proposition that the timeline at play is unreasonable 5 || or that it otherwise fits the standard for the issuance of a protective order. Moreover, counsel for 6 || Plaintiff has not demonstrated he cannot reschedule current obligations or explained why he is the 7 || only one who must be present at the deposition (to the exclusion of the remaining attorneys at his 8 || firm). As such, Plaintiff has not met his burden to show specific prejudice or harm will result if 9 || his motion for protective order is not granted. 10 I. CONCLUSION 11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 46) is DENIED. The 12 || deposition of Jesse Leavitt may go forward as currently noticed. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing set for November 21, 2025, is 14 |} VACATED. 15 16 DATED: November 18, 2025 17 18 BRENDA WEKSLER □ 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28