A.Motion. Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending or alternatively, on matters relating to a deposition or statement, the court in the district where the deposition or statement is to be taken may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden or expense, the risk of physical harm, intimidation, bribery or economic reprisals. The order may include one or more of the following restrictions: (1) that the deposition or statement requested not be taken;(2) that the deposition or statement requested be deferred;(3) that the deposition or statement may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;(4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the discovery be limited to certain matters;(5) that the deposition or statement be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the court;(6) that a deposition or statement after being sealed be opened only by order of the court;(7) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way; and(8) that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court.B.Written showing of good cause. Upon motion, the court may permit the showing of good cause required under Paragraph A of this rule to be in the form of a written statement for inspection by the court in camera, if the court concludes from the statement that there is a substantial need for the in camera showing. If the court does not permit the in camera showing, the written statement shall be returned to the movant upon request. If no such request is made, or if the court enters an order granting the relief sought, the entire text of the statement shall be sealed and preserved in the records of the court to be made available to the appellate court having jurisdiction in the event of an appeal.C.Denial of order. If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery. N.M. R. Crim. P. Dist. Ct. 5-507
As amended, effective August 1, 1992; May 15, 2000.Committee commentary. - This rule provides a protective order procedure only for the taking of depositions. Some of the same criteria for denying a party the opportunity to take a deposition are also used for denying discovery of evidence held by the state under Paragraph E of Rule 5-501 NMRA.
The grounds for the protective order are taken from Paragraph C of Rule 1-026 and American Bar Association Standards Relating to Discovery and Procedure Before Trial, Section 2.5 (Approved Draft 1970). The American Bar Association Special Committee on Federal Rules of Procedure urged that the proposed amendments to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure include the Standards. See 52 F.R.D. 87, 98 (1971). However, the Bar Association recommendations were not included in the federal amendments. See 62 F.R.D. 271, 307, 316-17 (1974).
ANNOTATIONS The 2000 amendment, effective May 15, 2000, in Paragraph A, substituted "Motion" for "Restrictions, upon showing of good cause" in the bold heading, substituted "the person from whom discovery is sought" for "a person to be examined pursuant to Rule 5-305" and inserted "alternatively, on matters relating to a deposition or statement" substituted "expense," for "from" preceding "the risk"; inserted "party or" in Paragraph C; and made minor stylistic changes throughout the rule. The 1992 amendment, effective for cases filed in the district courts on or after August 1, 1992, inserted "statement" in the catchline and "or statement" throughout the rule. Reasonable limitations on questions asked at deposition do not deprive defendant of due process. State v. Herrera, 1978-NMCA-048, 92 N.M. 7, 582 P.2d 384, cert. denied, 91 N.M. 751, 580 P.2d 972 (1978). Court may limit harassing and intimidating inquiry into victim's past sexual conduct. - Harassment and intimidation are grounds for restricting a deposition, so a trial court may limit inquiry into a victim's past sexual conduct where defendant's reason for the inquiry is to harass the victim and possibly frighten her from appearing as a witness. State v. Herrera, 1978-NMCA-048, 92 N.M. 7, 582 P.2d 384, cert. denied, 91 N.M. 751, 580 P.2d 972 (1978). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 21 Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law § 1177.