Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 111 (1964).

The Supreme Court has declared, albeit in dicta, that "[t]he various instruments of discovery" should be utilized "for the parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial."" To achieve the goal of fullest possible knowledge, it is essential "that the deposition-discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment."" It is true that under Rule 26(c) 18 the district court, on motion of a party and for good cause shown, has the power to deny the discovery. However, the record in the instant case is silent concerning any "good cause shown" for such a denial;" the district court apparently based its ruling on the discretionary powers given the judge in Rule 26(c). If in fact that is the case, and the effect on plaintiffs is prejudicial, the order may be deemed an abuse of discretion, correctable by a writ of mandamus." Plaintiff contends that both parties relied on the same good cause shown in presenting their

there was no good cause shown presented in the defendants Motion in Opposition of Plaintiffs Motion to Depose Sargeant Colligan and to Extend Discovery. In fact, Defendant had just presented an argument for deposing of Plaintiff in which heorder executed by Judge Slomienski, in which he denied Plaintiff permission to depose Sargeant Colligan and to extend discovery. The Judge merely stated that the Plaintiffs Motion was moot, since he had already granted Summary Judgment for the Defendant. This cannot be considered broad and liberal treatment of deposition discovery rules. Rather, the trial judge based its ruling on discretionary powers afforded to him, and should be deemed an abuse of discretion. In Defendants Motion Seeking Permission to take the deposition of Pro Se Plaintiff, the good cause shown and accepted by the trial judge, was based on defendants need to defend the claims of the Plaintiff and to find out the factual basis for his claim. However, when Plaintiff made the same request having good cause shown by way of Plaintiffs need to complete discovery so that he may defend against Summary Judgment, the plaintiffs motion was denied. This was clearly prejudicial towards the Plaintiff, and and demonstrates an abuse of discretion for the trial judge to recognize only the Plai rather than due

process when only the Defendants need for discovery in order to defend themselves is recognized by the trial judge?