Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01058/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01058-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Christopher I. Simmons is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action is proceeding Defendants Grissom, Keiley, St. Lucia, Ellstrom and Does #1-10 

(nurses) for deliberate indifference toward Plaintiff’s “heat risk” condition, in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment, against Defendants Ellstrom, Rients, Sauceda, Akanno and Rufino for deliberate 

indifference arising from the deprivation of Plaintiff’s pain medication, in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment, and against Defendants Rients, Akanno, Sauceda, Rufino and Ellstrom for retaliation, in 

violation of the First Amendment. 

On July 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay the proceedings. (ECF No. 125.) 

On July 24, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition. (ECF No. 126.) 

Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 6, 2015. (ECF No. 127.) Pursuant to court order, Defendants 

CHRISTOPHER I. SIMMONS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

GRISSOM, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:07-cv-01058-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO COMPEL, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO STAY THE PROCEEDINGS, AND 

EXTENDING THE DISCOVERY AND 

DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES

[ECF Nos. 125, 126, 130]

Case 1:07-cv-01058-DAD-SAB Document 131 Filed 09/28/15 Page 1 of 7
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

filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceedings on September 24, 2015. (ECF No. 129.) 

On September 25, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to modify the scheduling order. (ECF No. 130.) 

I.

DISCUSSION

A. Defendants’ Motion to Compel/Sanctions

Defendants contend that Plaintiff refused to attend his deposition. Defendants move to compel 

Plaintiff’s attendance at this deposition and seek the costs associated with their attempt to depose 

Plaintiff. 

Pursuant to the discovery and scheduling order, Defendants are entitled to depose Plaintiff so 

long as they serve, by mail, a notice in compliance with Rule 30 at least fourteen days before the 

deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), 30(b)(1). (ECF No. 90.) On July 6, 2015, Defendants timely 

noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for July 24, 2015, at the California Medical Facility. (ECF No. 126-2, 

Delgado Decl. ¶ 2.) When defense counsel attempted to depose Plaintiff as scheduled, Plaintiff 

refused to provide any testimony, or to appear at all. (Id. ¶¶ 3-10.) Defendants now move to compel 

Plaintiff’s deposition, and that Plaintiff be ordered to reimburse Defendants for the costs associated 

with the failed deposition, as well as the costs involved in preparing the motion to compel. 

Defendants further request that the Court modify the scheduling order for the limited purpose of 

allowing Defendants to take Plaintiff’s deposition.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d) provides that the court may order sanctions if a party 

fails, after being served with proper notice, to appear for their deposition. As a sanction, the court may 

order the party failing to act to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the 

failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses 

unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3). The Court may also dismiss the action as a sanction for a party’s 

failure to appear at their deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). In support of their motion, 

Defendants have submitted the declaration of defense counsel. Defense counsel details his attempt to 

depose Plaintiff and declares as follows:

2. On July 6, 2015, I served Plaintiff Christopher Simmons with a notice directing him 

to appear for a deposition on July 24, 2015. (See Exhibit A.) Plaintiff is an inmate in 

Case 1:07-cv-01058-DAD-SAB Document 131 Filed 09/28/15 Page 2 of 7
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

the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and he is 

currently housed at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville. The deposition was 

scheduled to take place at 9:00 a.m. at the California Medical Facility.

3. On July 24, 2015, I traveled from the Attorney General’s Office in Sacramento, to 

the California Medical Facility (approximately 30 minutes), to depose Plaintiff as 

scheduled. Plaintiff did not contact me any time before this date to tell me that he did 

not intend to participate in the deposition.

4. After I arrived at the prison and got situated, I waited roughly 25 minutes for 

Plaintiff to appear. The stenographer had walked with me to the designated room and 

set up her workspace, and she was standing by as well.

5. At roughly 9:30 a.m., Correctional Officer D. Gibbs came into the room and told us 

that Plaintiff was refusing to participate in the deposition. Officer Gibbs had just talked 

with Plaintiff, who was on the other side of a locked door.

6. I asked Officer Gibbs if I could speak with Plaintiff, but he said that I was not 

allowed on the other side of the door. I asked Officer Gibbs if he would get some 

additional information as to why Plaintiff was refusing to attend.

7. Officer Gibbs left the room and came back a few minutes later. He was holding a 

copy of Plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings, which was filed on Monday of this 

week. (ECF No. 125, filed July 20, 2015.) Officer Gibbs said that Plaintiff was 

refusing to attend the deposition based on this document.

8. After recognizing this document as Plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings, I asked 

Officer Gibbs if I could speak to Plaintiff from the entrance of the doorway. Gibbs 

quickly checked with a supervisor and confirmed that I was not allowed in the holding 

area where Plaintiff was sitting. So, I asked Officer Gibbs if he would tell Plaintiff (on 

my behalf) that he could not unilaterally cancel the deposition, and that I had not even 

had a chance to respond to the stay request, which had only been filed this week. I also 

asked Gibbs to tell Plaintiff that I would move for sanctions, including reimbursement 

for the costs involved in renoticing the deposition and filing a motion to compel, if 

Plaintiff would not appear and testify on July 24 as scheduled. Officer Gibbs left to 

relay these messages.

9. About five minutes later, Officer Gibbs returned. He said Plaintiff was firm about 

not participating in the deposition on account of being, in Plaintiff’s words, “mentally 

sick,” “f***ed up,” and because he “couldn’t think straight.” Plaintiff told Gibbs he 

wanted “to go back to [his] housing unit and get [his] meds right.”

10. At that point, I decided that relaying any further messages through Officer Gibbs 

would be futile, so I ended the deposition. I told Gibbs I would move to compel 

Plaintiff’s participation at a later date, and that he [Officer Gibbs] could release 

Plaintiff back to his housing unit. The stenographer and I packed up and left the prison.

Case 1:07-cv-01058-DAD-SAB Document 131 Filed 09/28/15 Page 3 of 7
4

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

11. I spent 4.75 hours preparing to take Plaintiff’s deposition. This includes the time 

spent reviewing various documents from the Court’s electronic docket, including 

Plaintiff’s 156-page original complaint, and the time involved in preparing a deposition 

outline. I spent another 1.75 hours traveling between the Attorney General’s Office in 

Sacramento, and the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, and waiting at the prison. 

12. I spent another 3.25 hours preparing the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s 

deposition. This includes 2.75 hours drafting the notice of motion and motion, the 

supporting memorandum of points and authorities, and this declaration; .25 hours 

conferring with my supervisor about the motion; and .25 hours making calls to Phillips 

Legal Services, which provided the stenographer for today’s deposition.

13. The Office of the Attorney General’s standard billing rate for legal services 

performed for state agencies is $170 per hour. (See Exhibit B.) In total, I have billed 

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for 9.75 hours of my time 

attempting to depose Plaintiff, at a cost of $1657.50.

14. The Attorney General’s Office incurred another $195 in costs for the stenographer 

for today’s failed deposition.

(ECF No. 126-2, Delgado Decl. ¶2-14.)

In his opposition to Defendants’ motion to compel, Plaintiff contends that Defendants have 

misstated the facts because he did appear for his deposition and provided them with a copy of his 

motion to stay. Plaintiff contends he is suffering from “thought impairments” which puts him at a 

greater disadvantage than previously. (ECF No. 127, Opp’n at 2.) Plaintiff concludes that he “is 

suffering from severe symptoms of trauma, affecting his concentration, attention, memory, intellectual 

facilities, among others, and seeks the protection of this Court as set forth in his Motion for a Stay of 

Court Proceedings.” (Id.) 

The undersigned finds that Plaintiff failed, without good cause, to appear at his properly 

noticed deposition. While Plaintiff claimed to be suffering from thought impairments and had filed a 

motion to stay the proceedings, there is no evidence to support Plaintiff’s claim regarding his medical 

condition. In support of his motion to stay, Plaintiff submits a memorandum, dated July 14, 2015, 

which notes that Plaintiff is diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Severe, without 

Psychotic Features for which he is being treated. (ECF No. 125.) Plaintiff also submits medical 

progress notes, dated February 27, 2015, and March 5, 2015, which are not relevant to the time frame 

at issue. Plaintiff’s evidence does not demonstrate that he is suffering from a mental or medical 

Case 1:07-cv-01058-DAD-SAB Document 131 Filed 09/28/15 Page 4 of 7
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

condition for which he is not being treated and which interferes with his ability to prosecute and 

participate in this action. Thus, there is no excuse for Plaintiff’s failure to participate in the properly 

noticed deposition. 

Plaintiff had sufficient notice of the deposition and Plaintiff could have contacted defense 

counsel anytime by mail or phone to discuss his alleged impairments and the possibility of resetting 

the matter. Yet, Plaintiff failed to do so. Accordingly, Plaintiff will be compelled to participate in the 

taking of his deposition after re-notice by Defendants. Plaintiff will also be ordered to pay monetary 

sanctions. Although Defendants incurred $1,852.50 in costs and attorneys’ fees associated with 

Plaintiff’s deposition and the motion to compel, Plaintiff is an inmate proceeding in forma pauperis, 

and given these circumstances, the Court finds the monetary sanction of $896.25 in costs and fees

(3.25 hours in preparation of the instant motion to compel, travel time at half the hourly rate, and costs 

of stenographer) appropriate. 

Defendants may re-notice Plaintiff’s deposition to take place within forty-five days of the date 

of this order. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to attend his deposition will result in the dismissal 

of this action. 

B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay

Plaintiff seeks an indefinite stay of the proceedings “pending resolution of Plaintiff’s medical 

condition.” (ECF No. 125.) Plaintiff contends he “is currently suffering from PTSD, affecting his 

[cognitive] functions, including, but not limited to, abstraction, concentration, attention, intellectual 

faculties, memory and ability to process information sufficiently to prepare meaningful moving and 

opposing papers, prepare for trial, discovery and respond to requests by defendants.” (Id. at 2.) 

Discovery in this action opened in July 2014, and the parties were given eight months to 

conduct pretrial discovery. (ECF No. 90.) In January 2015, Plaintiff was transferred from the 

California Medical Facility to Atascadero State Hospital for psychiatric treatment. (ECF Nos. 105, 

107.) Plaintiff was retained at Atascadero for 49 days, from December 5, 2014, to January 23, 2015. 

(ECF No. 113, at 2 and n.1.) During this time, Plaintiff was without his legal materials. (Id. at 2.) As 

a result, the Court modified the scheduling order by extending the discovery deadline and the 

dispositive motion deadline, each by 60 days. (ECF No. 115.) 

Case 1:07-cv-01058-DAD-SAB Document 131 Filed 09/28/15 Page 5 of 7
6

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

Then, approximately two months later, Plaintiff was transferred from the California Medical 

Facility to Atascadero a second time. (ECF No. 120.) Plaintiff was again separated from his legal 

materials for just over 90 days. The Court modified the scheduling order by extending the discovery 

deadline for an additional 60 days, and the dispositive motion deadline for an extra 50 days. (ECF No. 

123.) 

Defendants do not oppose a short modification of the scheduling order to complete discovery 

and to allow the parties to file dispositive motions. Defendants propose a 30-day extension of the 

discovery deadline, with a corresponding 30-day extension of the dispositive motion deadline. 

As previously stated, in support of his motion to stay, Plaintiff submits a memorandum, dated 

July 14, 2015, which notes that Plaintiff is diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, 

Severe, without Psychotic Features for which he is being treated. (ECF No. 125.) Plaintiff also 

submits medical progress notes, dated February 27, 2015, and March 5, 2015, which are not relevant 

to the time frame at issue. Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence that calls his competency into 

question, and he has not demonstrated that the proceedings should be stayed. 

On the basis of good cause, the Court will extend the discovery and dispositive motions 

deadlines, each by 30 days. 

II.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to compel is GRANTED;

2. Defendants may re-notice Plaintiff’s deposition to take place within sixty days of the 

date of this order; 

3. Plaintiff is ordered to pay Defendants $896.25 in fees and costs;

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:07-cv-01058-DAD-SAB Document 131 Filed 09/28/15 Page 6 of 7
7

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 discovery deadline is extended to October 28, 2015; and

5. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to November 28, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01058-DAD-SAB Document 131 Filed 09/28/15 Page 7 of 7