Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05819/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05819-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY E. WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

KROL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05819-HSG 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME

Re: Dkt. No. 22

Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that prison 

officials at San Francisco County Jail violated his constitutional rights. Now pending before the 

Court is Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to comply with Defendants’ deposition

request. Docket No. 22. Defendants have filed an opposition. Docket No. 23. For the reasons set 

forth below, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On May 31, 2016, the Court ordered service of the complaint on L.T. Krol, Captain 

Fischer, Sr. Deputy Groody, Officer Saelee, Officer Leung, Officer Suahlin, Officer Morris, 

Officer Bloom, Sr. Deputy Davis, Sergeant Gozin, Officer Wong, and Chief Deputy Sheriff 

Matthew Freeman (“Defendants”). Docket No. 9. 

On July 15, 2016, Defendants noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for August 10, 2016. Docket 

No. 15-1 at 2. On July 26, 2016, the notice of deposition was returned to counsel for Defendants 

postmarked “Return to Sender, Attempted – Not Known, Unable to Forward.” Id.

On August 18, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to comply with Civil Local Rule 3-11 and 

notify the Court and all parties of his new address. Docket No. 16. On October 12, 2016, Plaintiff 

filed a notice of change of address with the Court. Docket No. 19. On October 17, 2016, the 

Case 4:15-cv-05819-HSG Document 24 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Court set a briefing schedule requiring Defendants to file a dispositive motion by December 19, 

2016. Docket No. 20.

DISCUSSION

On October 20, 2016, Defendants re-noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for November 18, 2016 

at Plaintiff’s new address. Docket No. 23 at 2 and No. 23-1 at 4–6.1 The notice also required that 

Plaintiff bring to the deposition certain categories of items (photos, documents, lists) within his 

possession. Docket No. 23-1 at 4–6. Plaintiff requests an “extension of time to comply with 

Defendants’ deposition request.” Docket No. 22. Plaintiff states that he will need time to obtain 

the requested documents. Id. at 3–4. Plaintiff does not specify how long of an extension he seeks. 

Defendants oppose this motion, arguing that Plaintiff’s request is not the proper subject of an 

administrative motion and that Plaintiff fails to clearly state the relief sought. Docket No. 23 at 3.

Plaintiff’s request to postpone his deposition date in order to gather evidence is DENIED. 

The deposition notice only requires Plaintiff to bring to the deposition items that are in Plaintiff’s 

possession at the time of the deposition. Plaintiff is not required to obtain the items requested 

prior to being deposed. Nor is it necessary for a party to be in possession of all relevant 

documentary evidence prior to being deposed. 

Plaintiff’s request to postpone the date by which he must produce the items requested in 

the deposition notice is DENIED AS MOOT. A deposition notice is separate from a discovery 

request for production. As discussed above, the deposition notice only requires Plaintiff to bring 

to the deposition items that are in Plaintiff’s possession at the time of the deposition. If Plaintiff 

has no such items in his possession at the time of the deposition, he need not produce them to 

Defendants at the deposition. 

To the extent that Plaintiff is generally asking for an extension of time to obtain documents

supporting his claims, this request is premature as Plaintiff has not yet formally sought these 

documents, see Docket No. 23 at 3 (Plaintiff has not yet served any discovery in this case) and 

may be able to obtain these documents in time to oppose any dispositive motion filed by 

 

1

Plaintiff received this notice on October 25, 2016. Docket No. 22 at 1.

Case 4:15-cv-05819-HSG Document 24 Filed 11/04/16 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendants. 

To the extent that Plaintiff is alleging that he will need an attorney to represent him during 

his deposition, the Court notes that, at this early state in the proceedings, the Court is unable to 

assess whether exceptional circumstances exist which would warrant seeking volunteer counsel to 

accept a pro bono appointment. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (court 

may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only in “exceptional 

circumstances,” the determination of which requires an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of 

success on the merits, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of 

the complexity of the legal issues involved). Plaintiff should be prepared to be deposed without 

counsel.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is DENIED. 

This order terminates Docket No. 22.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

11/4/2016

Case 4:15-cv-05819-HSG Document 24 Filed 11/04/16 Page 3 of 3