Estela Elizabeth Jeffcoat v. Brookings Housing & Redevelopment Commission

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota denies Estela Elizabeth Jeffcoat’s motion for a protective order seeking to prevent the Brookings Housing & Redevelopment Commission from contacting her employer to verify her income. The court holds that the employment verification was not discovery subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and that Jeffcoat also failed to confer with the defendant and provide the required certification before filing the motion.

Holdings

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) does not provide grounds for a protective order when the defendant has not sought discovery from the moving party and the challenged conduct consists of normal actions in an ongoing housing-assistance relationship rather than litigation discovery.
2. A motion for a protective order must be preceded by a good-faith conference with the opposing party, and the movant must certify that the conference occurred or was attempted; Jeffcoat's failure to do so independently required denial of the motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) authorized a protective order against the housing authority's periodic employment-verification inquiries when those inquiries were not discovery sought in the litigation.
2. Whether the motion should be denied because Jeffcoat did not confer in good faith with the defendant or provide the required certification before filing the motion.

Disposition

other