Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01991/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01991-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REYNALDA MOLINA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF VISALIA, et. al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01991-LJO-SAB

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE AND FINDING NICHOLAS 

CHAVEZ IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE 

TO APPEAR AT DEPOSITION

(ECF Nos. 55, 57)

Currently pending before the Court is an order for Nicholas Chavez to show cause for his 

failure to appear for a deposition in this action. (ECF No. 57.) On October 7, 2015, the Court 

conducted a show cause hearing. Counsel Ron Statler appeared for Defendants. Mr. Chavez 

appeared at the hearing in person. Counsel Jesse French appeared telephonically on behalf of 

Mr. Chavez.

I.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs Reynalda Molina, Jacqueline Mendez-Maduena, Nicholas Chavez, and minors 

J.M., G.M., and N.A.C. filed this action on December 4, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) Currently this 

action is proceeding on the second amended complaint, filed June 20, 2014, against Defendants 

City of Visalia, and Officers Adam Collins, Daniel Roberts, and Dirk Alfano alleging 

unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, violations of substantive 

due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and state law claims. The claims in this 

action arise out of an incident in which officers attempted to make a traffic stop which led to a 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 60 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 5
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

2

high speed chase and resulted in injury to Nicholas Chavez and the deaths of Edwardo Maduena 

and Ruben Molina . (ECF No. 40.) 

On November 20, 2015, Plaintiff Chavez’s claims were dismissed with prejudice upon 

the stipulation of the parties. (ECF No. 50.) During the settlement of this matter between 

Defendants and Mr. Chavez, Mr. Chavez’s counsel agreed to accept notice of the deposition of 

Mr. Chavez. (Decl. of Leonard C. Herr ¶ 4, ECF No. 55-1.) 

On June 29, 2015, Defendants served an amended notice of taking deposition on August 

28, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in Visalia, California and a subpoena on Mr. Chavez. (Am. Notice of 

Taking Deposition Upon Oral Examination, Exhibit B, ECF No. 55-1 at 16-20.) The parties 

remaining in this action appeared at 9:00 a.m. on August 28, 2015, for the deposition, however 

Mr. Chavez did not appear. (Transcript of Nonappearance of Nicholas Chavez, Exhibit B, ECF 

No. 55-1.) On September 2, 2015, Defendants filed an ex parte application for an order to show 

cause why sanctions should not issue for the failure to appear and for an order compelling 

attendance at the deposition. (ECF No. 55.) On September 4, 2015, an order issued requiring 

Nicholas Chavez to appear for a hearing on October 7, 2015, to show cause why sanctions 

should not issue for his failure to comply with the deposition subpoena. (ECF No. 57.) 

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

The only authority in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to sanction a nonparty to an 

action for failure to comply with a subpoena is Rule 45(g). Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, 

Inc., 708 F.2d 492, 494 (9th Cir. 1983). A properly issued subpoena is itself a court order and a 

party’s noncompliance may warrant contempt sanctions. Pennwalt Corp., 708 F.2d at 494 n.5; 

U.S. S.E.C. v. Hyatt, 621 F.3d 687, 693 (7th Cir. 2010). Rule 45(g) provides that the court “may 

hold in contempt a person, who having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the 

subpoena or an order related to it.” Where a party is seeking to have a contempt sanction 

imposed against a nonparty, the nonparty has the right a meaningful opportunity to be heard. 

Hyatt, 621 F.3d at 697-97; Fisher v. Marubeni Cotton Corp., 526 F.2d 1338, 1342 (8th Cir. 

1975). 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 60 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 5
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

3

Civil contempt is characterized by the desire to compel compliance with a court order or 

to compensate a party for the injuries incurred due to noncompliance with an order. Falstaff 

Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., 702 F.2d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 1983). A sanction that is 

solely designed to compensate the deposing party is a civil contempt sanction. Pennwalt Corp., 

708 F.2d at 495. “The party moving for contempt has the burden to establish by clear and 

convincing evidence that the contemnor has violated a clear and specific court order.” Forsythe 

v. Brown, 281 F.R.D. 577, 587 (D. Nev. 2012) report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:10-

CV-00716-RCJ, 2012 WL 1833393 (D. Nev. May 18, 2012). “Once the moving party shows by 

clear and convincing evidence that the contemnor has violated a clear and specific court order, 

the burden shifts to the contemnor to show that he or she took every reasonable step to comply 

and to explain why compliance was not possible.” Forsythe, 281 F.R.D. at 587.

III.

DISCUSSION

Defendants seek to have Nicholas Chavez held in contempt for his failure to attend the 

deposition and request that he be ordered to attend a deposition and testify on November 17, 

2015 at 1:00 p.m.1 The Court has previously found that Defendants met their burden to show 

that Mr. Chavez has violated a clear and specific court order by failing to appear for his 

deposition. (ECF No. 57 at 2-3.) Therefore, the burden now shifts to Mr. Chavez to show that 

he took every reasonable step possible to comply with the subpoena or explain why his 

compliance was not possible. Forsythe, 281 F.R.D. at 587

Nicholas Chavez appeared at the hearing on October 7, 2015. When asked why he did 

not show up at his deposition on August 28. Mr. Chavez informed the Court that his car had 

broken down and he did not have transportation. Mr. Chavez further informed the Court that he 

did not have the contact information for his attorney or for Defendants’ counsel.

/ / /

 

1 Defendants also moved for sanctions of $2,097.50 for the costs incurred in bringing this motion. Rule 11 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other 

motion. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). Based upon the finding that Mr. Chavez committed contempt by failing to 

appear at the noticed deposition, Defendants shall be provided with an opportunity to file a motion for sanctions. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 60 Filed 10/08/15 Page 3 of 5
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

4

The Court does not accept Mr. Chavez’s proffered excuse. Mr. Chavez could have easily 

looked up the contact information for his own attorney or for Defendants’ attorney. Mr. Chavez 

made no effort to do so. Given that Mr. Chavez was formerly a plaintiff in this action, the Court 

refuses to accept any suggestion that Mr. Chavez did not have any means to look up the contact 

information for either his own attorney or Defendants’ attorney.

Defendants request $2,097.50 in monetary sanctions, representing $577.50 in costs and 

$1,520.00 in attorneys’ fees associated with Mr. Chavez’s failure to appear at his deposition. At 

the hearing, Mr. Chavez requested a reduced monetary sanction in light of his limited economic 

means. The Court will award reduced sanctions. The Court will order Mr. Chavez to reimburse 

Defendants for the costs associated with the court reporters and videographers ($577.50) but will 

only require Mr. Chavez to reimburse Defendants for $500.00 in attorneys’ fees. Mr. Chavez 

shall pay Defendants a total of $1,077.50 in monetary sanctions due to his unexcused failure to 

appear at his deposition. The Court will also order Mr. Chavez to appear at a deposition on 

November 17, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. at the offices of Herr Pedersen & Berglund.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Nicholas Chavez is adjudged to be in contempt of the order requiring him to 

appear for deposition on August 28, 2015;

2. Nicholas Chavez shall appear for deposition on November 17, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. 

at the offices of Herr Pedersen & Berglund, 100 Willow Plaza, Suite 300, Visalia, 

California;

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 60 Filed 10/08/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

3. Nicholas Chavez shall pay Defendants $1,077.50 in monetary sanctions 

associated with his failure to appear at his deposition and do so in 60 days from 

entry of this Order; and

4. Failure to comply with this order may subject Mr. Chavez to further contempt 

sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 60 Filed 10/08/15 Page 5 of 5