Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00540/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00540-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1986 Neglect of Duty

---

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

PAUL WELDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JERRY DYER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00540-LJO-SAB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO COMPEL

ECF NO. 93

On February 2, 2015, Defendants Jerry Dyer1and John Conlee (“City Defendants”) filed 

a Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Answer Deposition Questions; and Motion to Extend Expert 

Discovery Deadline; and Request for Sanctions. (ECF No. 93.) City Defendants filed a 

Statement re Discovery Disagreement on March 4, 2015. (ECF No. 102.) Plaintiff Paul Weldon 

(“Plaintiff”) did not participate in drafting the Statement re Discovery Disagreement.

The Court finds it appropriate for Defendants’ motion to be submitted upon the records 

and briefs on file without oral argument. See Local Rule 230(g). Accordingly, the Court vacates 

the hearing on Defendants’ motion set for March 11, 2015.2 For the reasons set forth below, the 

 

1 Due to confusion as to whether Jerry Dyer is properly joined as a defendant in this action, there is a pending 

motion seeking dismissal of all claims against Defendant Dyer.

2 A hearing is also set for March 11, 2015 on a separate matter in this action, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff 

to submit to an independent mental examination. (See ECF No. 88.) In a separate order issued contemporaneously 

with this order, the Court will continue that hearing to March 25, 2015 to coincide with Plaintiff’s motion for a 

protective order. (See ECF Nos. 95, 99.)

Case 1:13-cv-00540-LJO-SAB Document 103 Filed 03/06/15 Page 1 of 10
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

Court grants Defendants’ motion.

I.

BACKGROUND

The operative complaint in this matter is the Fourth Amended Complaint filed on 

September 2, 2014. (ECF No. 77.) Plaintiff’s claims arise from an incident on April 18, 2011. 

Plaintiff alleges that he was pulled over while driving a van by Defendant John Conlee. Plaintiff 

alleges that Conlee was impersonating a Fresno Police Officer because he never took a proper 

oath of office. Plaintiff further alleges that Conlee was rude to Plaintiff and eventually ordered 

Plaintiff out of the van and assaulted Plaintiff by twisting his arms behind his back to handcuff 

him. Plaintiff further alleges that, although the van was properly registered, Conlee ripped the 

registration tab off of the license plate and called Econo Towing Company to tow the car away. 

The towing truck was operated by Defendant Beryle Dodson. Econo Towing Company is owned 

by Defendants Marty Kodman and Robert Kodman.

The Court has construed Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint as asserting claims under 

Section 1983 for the use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, unreasonable 

search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, failure to provide sufficient notice 

regarding a seizure in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and for conversion.

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS FOR MOTIONS TO COMPEL

Motions to compel are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which states, in 

pertinent part:

(a) Motion for an Order Compelling Disclosure or Discovery.

(1) In General. On notice to other parties and all affected persons, 

a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. 

The motion must include a certification that the movant has in 

good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or 

party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain 

it without court action.

...

(3) Specific Motions.

...

(B) To Compel a Discovery Response. A party seeking discovery 

may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, 

production, or inspection. This motion may be made if:

Case 1:13-cv-00540-LJO-SAB Document 103 Filed 03/06/15 Page 2 of 10
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

(i) a deponent fails to answer a question asked under Rule 30 or 

31;

...

(4) Evasive or Incomplete Disclosure, Answer, or Response. For 

purposes of this subdivision (a), an evasive or incomplete 

disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to 

disclose, answer, or respond.

Moreover, Rule 37 imposes sanctions against the party whose conduct necessitated a motion to 

compel:

(5) Payment of Expenses; Protective Orders.

(A) If the Motion Is Granted (or Disclosure or Discovery Is 

Provided After Filing). If the motion is granted--or if the disclosure 

or requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed--the 

court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the 

party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party 

or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's 

reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including 

attorney's fees. But the court must not order this payment if:

(i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to 

obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action;

(ii) the opposing party's nondisclosure, response, or objection was 

substantially justified; or

(iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s Failure to Participate in drafting a Joint Statement re Discovery 

Disagreement

The Court notes that City Defendants filed a Statement re Discovery Disagreement 

without Plaintiff’s participation. City Defendants inform the Court that Plaintiff’s participation 

was solicited, but Plaintiff failed to respond in writing.

Under this Court’s Local Rules, Plaintiffs’ participation in drafting a Joint Statement re 

Discovery Disagreement is mandatory:

(c) Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement. If the moving 

party is still dissatisfied after the conference of counsel, that party 

shall draft and file a document entitled “Joint Statement re 

Discovery Disagreement.” All parties who are concerned with 

the discovery motion shall assist in the preparation of, and 

shall sign, the Joint Statement, which shall specify with 

particularity the following matters:

Case 1:13-cv-00540-LJO-SAB Document 103 Filed 03/06/15 Page 3 of 10
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

(1) The details of the conference or conferences;

(2) A statement of the nature of the action and its factual disputes 

insofar as they are pertinent to the matters to be decided and the 

issues to be determined at the hearing; and

(3) The contentions of each party as to each contested issue, 

including a memorandum of each party's respective arguments 

concerning the issues in dispute and the legal authorities in support 

thereof.

Local Rule 251(c) (emphasis added). The Local Rules expressly warn litigants that failure to 

participate in the preparation of a Joint Statement is grounds for sanctions:

Refusal of any counsel to participate in a discovery conference, or 

refusal without good cause to execute the required joint statement, 

shall be grounds, in the discretion of the Court, for entry of an 

order adverse to the party represented by counsel so refusing or 

adverse to counsel. See L.R. 110.

Local Rule 251(d).

Plaintiff failed to participate in drafting a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement in 

this case. In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 251(d), the Court will order Plaintiff 

to show cause why he should not be subjected to sanctions for his failure to comply with the 

requirements of Local Rule 251.

B. Motion to Compel Deposition Responses

City Defendants’ motion seeks to compel Plaintiff to respond to certain deposition 

questions. City Defendants argue that Plaintiff was uncooperative during the deposition and 

provided evasive answers to deposition questions.

The deposition transcript shows that Plaintiff was uncooperative with City Defendants’ 

attorney, Ms. Erica Camarena, from the start. Plaintiff’s rude and obstructive behavior 

apparently stemmed from Plaintiff’s utter lack of understanding of how discovery and 

depositions work. Plaintiff began the deposition challenging Ms. Camarena’s license to practice 

law. Plaintiff then challenged Ms. Camarena’s qualification to administer oaths and ask 

questions at the deposition. Plaintiff then refused to proceed with the deposition under the 

mistaken belief that Ms. Camarena could not ask questions unless she was qualified to 

administer oaths.

/ / /

Case 1:13-cv-00540-LJO-SAB Document 103 Filed 03/06/15 Page 4 of 10
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

At this point, the Court notes that the Local Rules are deliberately designed in a way that 

affords litigants, including Plaintiff, a full and fair opportunity to present their legal arguments to 

the Court, including Plaintiff’s contention that Ms. Camarena is prohibited from asking questions 

at a deposition unless she is qualified to administer oaths. Specifically, Local Rule 251 affords 

Plaintiff the opportunity to present his side of the argument in a Joint Statement re Discovery 

Dispute and cite the legal authority that supports his contentions. Unsurprisingly, Plaintiff 

refused to participate when it was time to put his money where his mouth was, and has utterly 

failed to present the Court with any authority whatsoever justifying his obstinate behavior at the 

deposition.

Ms. Camarena later attempted to ask Plaintiff about the cell phone mentioned in 

Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff refused to answer Ms. Camerena’s questions with responses such 

as “why is this relevant,” and “No, I’m not answering. Period. Okay? Next.” Plaintiff then 

accused Ms. Camarena of “rape, a molest, and a torture and unnecessary...” Plaintiff refused to 

answer Ms. Camarena’s questions regarding Plaintiff’s home address, educational background, 

employment, and prior lawsuits involving Plaintiff. Plaintiff refused to answer Ms. Camarena’s 

questions regarding the incident alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint, such as where Plaintiff was 

traveling from and to, who Plaintiff was talking to on the phone, Plaintiff’s cell phone number, 

whether Plaintiff was authorized to park on the property where his car was towed, etc. 

The deposition transcript shows that Plaintiff exhibited a shameful lack of 

professionalism, respect, and courtesy toward Defendants’ counsel. As much as Plaintiff would 

like to paint himself as the victim of harassment, it is Plaintiff who is harassing Defendants’ 

counsel through his rude, offensive, uncooperative behavior and hyperbolic objections. This 

Court will not tolerate this type of behavior from any litigant or attorney practicing before this 

Court.

Defendants’ counsel’s conduct during the deposition does not come close to conduct that 

could be characterized as “rape,” “molestation,” or “torture.” This Court oversees thousands of 

lawsuits filed by litigants. By the Court’s estimation, tens of thousands of depositions of 

witnesses occur in these cases every year. To the Court’s knowledge, Plaintiff is the only 

Case 1:13-cv-00540-LJO-SAB Document 103 Filed 03/06/15 Page 5 of 10
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

6

witness to compare his deposition experience with “rape.” Depositions go hand-in-hand with 

lawsuits. Discovery requests go hand-in-hand with lawsuits. Plaintiff chose to file this lawsuit. 

Plaintiff better quickly learn to cope with the consequences of his choices. If you file a lawsuit, 

chances are you are going to be deposed by the opposing party. This does not constitute 

harassment in any way, shape, or form. Defendants’ right to conduct discovery stems from their 

right of due process to mount a defense against Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff possesses the exact 

same right to depose Defendants and propound discovery. Both parties are entitled to their 

respective rights and the Court will adjudicate under the requirement of the law. Professionalism

will always be exercised in this Court and applies equally to attorneys and parties and parties 

who represent themselves.

Plaintiff must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s discovery rules and 

treat Defendants’ counsel and others with professionalism, courtesy, and respect. Further 

instances of misconduct will not be tolerated by the Court. If Plaintiff does not correct his 

behavior, the Court will recommend that the action be dismissed. 

The Court advises Plaintiff that the scope of discovery is quite broad. Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) states:

(b) Discovery Scope and Limits.

(1) Scope in General. Unless otherwise limited by court order, the 

scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery 

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's 

claim or defense--including the existence, description, nature, 

custody, condition, and location of any documents or other 

tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know 

of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order 

discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in 

the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial 

if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the 

limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C).

The scope of discovery encompassed by Rule 26 “has been construed broadly to encompass any 

matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue 

that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). 

“[D]iscovery is not limited to issues raised by the pleadings, for discovery itself is designed to 

help define and clarify issues.” Id. (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 500-501 (1947)). 

Case 1:13-cv-00540-LJO-SAB Document 103 Filed 03/06/15 Page 6 of 10
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

7

“Nor is discovery limited to the merits of a case, for a variety of fact-oriented issues may arise 

during litigation that are not related to the merits.” Id.

Thus, the Supreme Court has expressly held that discovery is not limited to matters which 

fall within the four corners of Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendants have the right to use the 

discovery process to investigate into any matters which are reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s personal background may yield information 

relevant to Plaintiff’s credibility. Plaintiff’s prior lawsuits may yield information relating to a 

pattern and practice of litigation against governmental entities or lack of cooperation with 

government officials. Notably, Plaintiff’s cellphone is a matter which Plaintiff himself injected 

into this lawsuit. Plaintiff alleged that he received a call from his “legal counsel” during the 

incident alleged in the complaint. Therefore, Defendants have a right to ask Plaintiff questions 

about this cell phone and information regarding the “legal counsel” Plaintiff was speaking to 

during the incident. Defendants have a right to investigate whether this third party “legal 

counsel” has relevant information and should be called to testify at trial.

The Court advises Plaintiff that these same discovery rules apply equally in favor of

Plaintiff, granting Plaintiff the broad right to use the discovery process to investigate his claims 

against Defendants. The right to broadly investigate any matter which is reasonably calculated 

to yield information that could be used by a party in this litigation is firmly established. Plaintiff 

filed this action, thereby opening the doors of discovery to Defendants.

Accordingly, the Court will compel Plaintiff to submit to further questioning at a 

deposition scheduled by Defendants. Plaintiff shall provide truthful, complete, and non-evasive 

responses to Defendants’ questions that are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. Plaintiff is further advised that his objections to Defendants’ deposition 

questions, as set forth in the deposition transcript excerpts submitted by Defendants, are not

substantially justified, as the questions asked by Defendants fall within the broad scope of the 

discovery limits.

Furthermore, Plaintiff is advised that a deposition is Defendants’ time to ask Plaintiff 

questions, Plaintiff is not permitted to grill Defendants’ counsel with questions regarding her 

Case 1:13-cv-00540-LJO-SAB Document 103 Filed 03/06/15 Page 7 of 10
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

8

qualifications. If Plaintiff has any objections to the deposition, Plaintiff may make them on 

record and then raise them in a motion to the Court if he intends to not answer the question 

asked. Time wasted by Plaintiff’s antics is time which Defendants have to pay for in attorneys’ 

fees, videographer fees, and transcription fees. Plaintiff is forewarned that the Court will 

sanction Plaintiff for further behavior which wastes Defendants’ time and require Plaintiff to 

reimburse Defendants for any time wasted by Defendants’ antics.

C. Plaintiff’s Responses to Written Discovery

In their Statement re Discovery Disagreement, Defendants seek to compel Plaintiff to 

respond to written discovery. Specifically, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s responses to 

certain interrogatories and requests for production of documents were uncooperative and evasive. 

However, Defendants’ February 2, 2015 motion was directed solely at Plaintiff’s deposition 

responses and made no mention of Plaintiff’s written discovery responses. Accordingly, the 

Court has no occasion to address the propriety of Plaintiff’s written discovery responses. If 

Defendants wish to put Plaintiff’s written discovery responses at issue, Defendants must do so in 

a properly noticed motion.

D. Defendants’ Request to Extend the Expert Discovery Deadline

In their Statement re Discovery Disagreement, Defendants request an extension of the 

deadline to conduct expert discovery. Again, this is an issue not raised in their February 2, 2015 

motion. The Court will address whether the expert discovery deadline should be extended in 

conjunction with Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to submit to an independent medical 

examination and Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order (from an independent medical exam).

E. Plaintiff’s Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) Requests

In their Statement re Discovery Disagreement, Defendants inform the Court that Plaintiff 

served the City of Fresno with a request under the Freedom of Information Act seeking all 

information about “agents and employees related to or working on the Weldon v. Conlee case.”

The Court is sympathetic to counsel regarding Plaintiff’s attempt to obtain personal 

information regarding Defendants’ counsel. This information clearly falls outside even the broad 

scope of discovery in this litigation. Personal information regarding Defendants’ attorneys does 

Case 1:13-cv-00540-LJO-SAB Document 103 Filed 03/06/15 Page 8 of 10
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

9

not appear to be relevant to this case. This is clearly distinguishable from personal information 

regarding Plaintiff. Plaintiff is a party to this action and was directly involved in the incident 

alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint. Ms. Camarena was not. Plaintiff is almost certainly going to be 

called as a percipient witness at the trial on his claims and some degree of personal information 

regarding Plaintiff can be said to be reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence as it 

may lead to evidence regarding Plaintiff’s credibility and character for truthfulness. In contrast, 

there is no indication that Ms Camarena will be called as a percipient witness and, therefore, no 

justification for seeking her personal information since Ms. Camarena’s credibility is not at issue 

if she is not testifying. Similarly, if Plaintiff were represented by an attorney, discovery requests 

seeking personal information regarding Plaintiff’s attorney would be outside the scope of 

permissible discovery.

However, Plaintiff’s FOIA requests are not subject to the rules of discovery, they are 

subject to the limitations set forth in the Freedom of Information Act. Defendants cite no 

authority which would permit the Court to take action against Plaintiff for his FOIA request. 

Accordingly, the Court will not sanction Plaintiff for making his FOIA request.

F. Defendants’ Request for Sanctions

Defendants request sanctions from Plaintiff in the amount of $715, which represents 6.5 

hours of attorney time billed at $110 per hour. Rule 37 mandates the imposition of monetary 

sanctions unless Defendants failed to meet and confer in good faith before filing their motion, 

Plaintiff’s nondisclosure was substantially justified, or other circumstances make an award of 

expenses unjust. The Court finds that none of these conditions exist in this instance. The Court 

further finds the $715.00 in sanctions to be reasonable expenses incurred in making their motion 

to compel.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has a history of non-cooperation and flirting with sanctions 

in this action. On June 4, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why he should not be 

sanctioned for his failure to appear at a motion hearing. (ECF No. 55.) On October 9, 2014, 

Plaintiff filed a frivolous motion for protective order which the Court denied. (ECF Nos. 88, 84.)

Plaintiff is forewarned that repeated failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Case 1:13-cv-00540-LJO-SAB Document 103 Filed 03/06/15 Page 9 of 10
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

10

Procedure, the Local Rules, and this Court’s orders will be met with increasing sanctions, up to 

and including dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 

251 by failing to participate in the drafting of a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement. The 

Court further finds that Plaintiff improperly refused to answer questions during his deposition. 

The Court declines to address Defendants’ arguments regarding Plaintiff’s responses to written 

discovery requests because those issues are beyond the scope of Defendants’ motion to compel.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE why further sanctions should not be imposed for 

his failure to comply with Local Rule 251 by failing to participate in the drafting 

of a Joint Statement re Discovery Dispute. Plaintiff shall provide a written 

response to this order to show cause on or before March 20, 2015;

2. Plaintiff shall submit to a further deposition at a mutually agreeable date, time, 

and place set by the parties and Plaintiff shall provide truthful, complete, and nonevasive responses to Defendants’ questions; and

3. Plaintiff shall pay Defendants $715.00 in monetary sanctions due to his failure to 

comply with the discovery rules. If Plaintiff has not paid these sanctions within 

thirty (30) days, Defendants shall notify the Court and the Court will order 

Plaintiff to show cause why further sanctions should not be imposed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00540-LJO-SAB Document 103 Filed 03/06/15 Page 10 of 10