Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02015/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02015-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN PARKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

N. WEST,

Defendant.

No. 2:22-cv-2015 CSK P

ORDER AND REVISED SCHEDULING 

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Before the Court is defendant’s motion to 

compel compliance with the deposition subpoena for the testimony of an incarcerated nonparty 

witness and second motion to modify the scheduling order. (ECF No. 61.) As discussed below, 

defendant’s motion is denied without prejudice, and the scheduling order is modified pending 

refiling and resolution of the renewed motion to compel compliance with the deposition

subpoena. 

I. BACKGROUND

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s amended complaint alleging that on October 31, 2019, 

defendant N. West allegedly paid inmate Durrell Puckett to murder plaintiff by removing 

Puckett’s restraints and opening his cell door to enable Puckett to attack plaintiff, who was 

chained to the dayroom floor. (ECF No. 18 at 6-7.) In Sacramento County Superior Court, Case 

No. 20FE002269, inmate Durrell Puckett was criminally charged with the attempted murder of 

Case 2:22-cv-02015-CSK Document 63 Filed 12/26/24 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

plaintiff on October 31, 2019. (ECF No. 61-1 at 3, 8.) 

On September 18, 2024, on defendant’s motion, the scheduling order was modified, and 

discovery was reopened for the limited purpose of deposing Mr. Puckett. (ECF No. 60.) The 

Court found that deposing Mr. Puckett is likely to lead to relevant evidence. (Id. at 3.) Discovery 

was reopened until October 31, 2024, and the dispositive deadline was extended to November 20, 

2024. (Id.)

On September 30, 2024, defendant noticed Mr. Puckett’s deposition for October 14, 2024,

at California State Prison, Corcoran, where Mr. Puckett was incarcerated, and served the notice 

and subpoena on Mr. Puckett at his current address. (ECF No. 61-1 at 14-17.) The subpoena also 

commanded Mr. Puckett to bring with him to the deposition all documents in his “possession that 

pertain to the allegations and issues that are the subject matter of this lawsuit.” (ECF No. 61-1 at 

14.) 

 On October 31, 2024, defendant filed a motion to compel compliance with deposition 

subpoena for the deposition testimony of incarcerated witness Durrell Puckett, CDCR No. 

G05549, who refused to appear at the October 14, 2024 deposition.1

 (ECF No. 61.) In addition, 

defendant sought to modify the scheduling order to reopen discovery to take Mr. Puckett’s 

deposition, address any failure to comply, and file a dispositive motion. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file 

an opposition. 

II. MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

A. Defendant’s Position

Defendant seeks an order compelling compliance with deposition subpoena for Mr. 

Puckett, an incarcerated nonparty, to appear and participate in a deposition. (ECF No. 61-1 at 2 

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1), 37(a), and 45).) Defendant does not seek contempt sanctions at 

this time, but if Mr. Puckett disobeys another deposition subpoena and court order, defendant will 

move to exclude his testimony and seek other appropriate sanctions. (ECF No. 61-1 at 4.) 

///

1

 Defendant did not refer to a “subpoena duces tecum,” which, when included in a subpoena for 

deposition, requires the deponent to bring certain documents with him to the deposition.

Case 2:22-cv-02015-CSK Document 63 Filed 12/26/24 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

B. Governing Standards 

The Court has broad discretion to manage discovery. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 

606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012). Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, with 

some exceptions, “[a] party may, by oral question, depose any person . . . without leave of court.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1).2 Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(1), “a party may move for an order compelling 

disclosure or discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). A Rule 45 subpoena is the only discovery 

method by which information may be obtained from a nonparty. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. Under Rule 

45, a subpoena commands each person to whom it is directed to attend and give testimony. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). A properly issued subpoena is itself a court order. Pennwalt Corp. v. 

Durand-Wayland, Inc., 708 F.2d 492, 494 n.5 (9th Cir. 1983). 

C. Discussion

Following review of the motion to compel compliance with the deposition subpoena and 

the exhibits appended thereto, it appears that defendant failed to serve a copy of the motion to 

compel compliance on the nonparty witness, Mr. Puckett. (ECF Nos. 61 at 3; 61-1 at 31.) 

Although defendant served a copy of the motion on plaintiff, there is no certificate of service 

attesting to service of the motion on Mr. Puckett, who is entitled to notice and an opportunity to 

respond to the motion. (Id.) Therefore, defendant’s motion to compel compliance with the 

deposition subpoena is denied without prejudice to renewal, accompanied by a certificate of 

service attesting to service on nonparty witness Durrell Puckett, CDCR No. G05549.

3

III. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

Defendant also seeks to modify the scheduling order to take Mr. Puckett’s deposition, 

address any failure to comply, and file a dispositive motion. (ECF No. 61-1 at 2.) Specifically, 

2

 Mr. Puckett is incarcerated and thus his deposition would ordinarily be subject to leave of 

Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2). In this case, on February 15, 2014, the parties were already 

granted leave to depose an incarcerated plaintiff or witness. (ECF No. 55 at 5.)

3

 According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) California 

Incarcerated Records and Information Search (“CIRIS”), it appears Mr. Puckett is now 

incarcerated at the California Men’s Colony, San Luis Obispo, California. This information was 

obtained from the CDCR Inmate Locator website, <https://ciris.mt.cdcr.ca.gov> (accessed Dec. 2, 

2024). 

Case 2:22-cv-02015-CSK Document 63 Filed 12/26/24 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

defendant asks the Court to extend the deadline to take Mr. Puckett’s deposition and to file any 

necessary motion to compel for thirty days after the Court addresses defendant’s motion. Also, 

defendant requests that the dispositive motions deadline be extended until forty-five days after the 

Court addresses defendant’s motion. 

“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good 

cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified 

‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” 

Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607).

Good cause appearing, defendant’s motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order 

(ECF No. 61) is partially granted. The record reflects that defendant has been diligent in efforts 

to complete discovery, and to depose Mr. Puckett. Defendant is granted an extension of time to 

renew his motion to compel compliance with deposition subpoena, and the discovery deadline is 

extended until the Court rules on such renewed motion. If the renewed motion is granted, the 

Court will issue an appropriate order revising the discovery deadline accordingly. In all other 

respects, discovery remains closed. The pretrial motions deadline is stayed and will be reset once 

the renewed motion to compel Mr. Puckett’s deposition is resolved. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion to compel compliance with deposition subpoena (ECF No. 61) is 

denied without prejudice to renewal.

2. Defendant’s renewed motion to compel compliance with deposition subpoena shall be 

filed within fourteen days from the date of this order and shall be accompanied by a 

certificate of service attesting to service on nonparty witness Durrell Puckett. 

3. Defendant’s motion to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 61) is partially granted.

4. Discovery is reopened through resolution of defendant’s renewed motion to compel 

Case 2:22-cv-02015-CSK Document 63 Filed 12/26/24 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

compliance with deposition subpoena; discovery is reopened solely for the limited 

purpose of addressing such nonparty deposition. For all other purposes, discovery 

remains closed.

5. The pretrial motions deadline is stayed pending further order of Court.

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on nonparty Durrell 

Puckett, CDCR No. G05549, California Men’s Colony, P.O. Box 8101, San Luis 

Obispo, California 93409-8101. 

Dated: December 23, 2024

/1/park2015.16b2

Case 2:22-cv-02015-CSK Document 63 Filed 12/26/24 Page 5 of 5