Andrich

facts in the record.” Garris v. FBI, 937 F.3d 1284, 1291 (9th Cir. 2019)

(quoting In re Roman Cath. Archbishop of Portland in Or., 661 F.3d 417, 423 (9th

1 Andrich does not directly challenge the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

24-3078 Cir. 2011)).

It is well-established that the scope of discovery is within the discretion of

the district court. United States v. Domina, 784 F.2d 1361, 1372 (9th Cir. 1986).

This includes the district court’s ability “to decide when a protective order is

appropriate and what degree of protection is required.” Seattle Times Co. v.

Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 authorizes

the district court to “forbid[] the disclosure or discovery” of matters and to “limit[]

the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(c)(1)(A) & (D). Rule 26 expressly limits discovery to “any nonprivileged

matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs

of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (emphasis added).

Andrich argues the district court applied the incorrect legal standard.

However, Andrich fails to…