Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02113/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02113-1/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABRIEL L. JORDAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICER

ESPINOZA (#530), et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02113-YGR (PR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

AND SANCTIONS

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and Sanctions, seeking a court 

order barring Defendants from conducting discovery, i.e., subpoenaing his medical records and 

taking his deposition, until “the Court has issued [deadlines] for discovery.” Dkt. 20 at 2. 

Plaintiff also requests that the Court issue sanctions on Defendants for attempting to conduct 

discovery prior to the “case management order setting deadlines for discovery.” Id.

On November 6, 2014, the Court issued its “Order of Service” in which it stated as 

follows:

Discovery may be taken in this action in accordance with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Leave of the Court pursuant to 

Rule 30(a)(2) is hereby granted to Defendants to depose

Plaintiff and any other necessary witnesses confined in prison.

Dkt. 14 at 7. In pro se prisoner actions such as the instant action, the Court need not issue any 

further “case management order” that allows the parties to conduct discovery. The parties were 

instructed to conduct discovery in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; therefore, 

the parties are expected to follow the Court’s instructions and no further discovery deadlines will 

be issued. 

In addition, as stated above, Defendants were granted leave to depose Plaintiff and any 

other necessary witnesses confined in prison pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of 

Case 4:14-cv-02113-YGR Document 22 Filed 02/04/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Civil Procedure. Id. Contrary to Plaintiff’s claim, Defendants have therefore properly noticed 

Plaintiff’s deposition scheduled for February 6, 2015. Dkt. 2 at 1. Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendants used excessive force on him on a specific occasion. The amount of force used by 

Defendants as well as the circumstances surrounding such allegations are critical to determining 

the viability of Plaintiff’s claims. Moreover, Plaintiff’s evidence will largely consist of his version 

of the events. Defendants are entitled to discover Plaintiff’s version of the events in order to 

properly evaluate the case, the possibility of a dispositive motion and/or settlement, and their trial 

strategy. Plaintiff shall attend Defendants’ properly noticed deposition on February 6, 2015. 

Defendants may continue to conduct discovery in the manner they have been doing so. No 

sanctions are warranted in this action.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and Sanctions is DENIED. Dkt. 20.

This Order terminates Docket No. 20.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

February 4, 2015

Case 4:14-cv-02113-YGR Document 22 Filed 02/04/15 Page 2 of 2