Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00710/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00710-4/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

P.Y.M.T., a minor, by and through her 

guardian ad litem DEBI ONTIVEROS, an 

individual and as Successor in Interest to 

Decedent, Miguel Moreno Torrez ; 

MARIA CARRILLO, an individual and 

Successor in Interest to decedent, Miguel 

Moreno Torrez, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF FRESNO, THE FRESNO 

POLICE DEPARTMENT and 

DEFENDANT OFFICERS DOES 1-10, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:15-cv-710-JAM-BAM 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL AND DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES 

(Docs. 29, 31) 

 Pending before the Court is Defendant City of Fresno’s Motion to Compel named 

Plaintiffs Maria Carillo, Antonio Moreno, and P.Y.M.T., by and through P.Y.M.T.’s Guardian Ad 

Litem Deibi Ontiveros (“Plaintiffs”), to attend their depositions in the United States. (Doc. 29). 

The motion also seeks an award of attorneys’ fees for Plaintiffs’ failure to appear at their 

depositions, previously scheduled for March 10 and 11, 2016. The parties filed a Joint Statement 

re Discovery Disagreement on May 13, 2016. (Doc. 31). The Court deemed the motion suitable 

for decision without oral argument and vacated the hearing scheduled for May 23, 2016. (Doc. 

32). Having considered the joint statement, and the entire file, Defendant’s Motion to Compel is 

GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. 

Case 1:15-cv-00710-JAM-BAM Document 33 Filed 05/19/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

BACKGROUND 

 This action arises out of the officer-involved shooting of decedent Miguel Torrez by 

officers with the Fresno Police Department on June 21, 2014. The Plaintiffs in the action are the 

decedent’s mother Maria Carrillo, the decedent’s father Antonio Moreno, and decedent’s minor 

child P.Y.M.T., by and through Guardian Ad Litem Deibi Ontiveros. At all times relevant to this 

lawsuit, Plaintiffs have resided in Sinaloa, Mexico. On May 26, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their 

complaint for federal civil rights and state law claims in the Eastern District of California. 

 In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1), Defendant served Plaintiffs’ 

notices of depositions on three separate occasions. See Declaration of Courtney Arbucci 

(“Arbucci Decl.,”), at pg. 13, Doc. 29. On February 1, 2016, the most recent occasion, Defendant 

served Plaintiffs’ counsel with the deposition notices via U.S. Mail for Plaintiffs’ depositions to 

take place on March 10, 2016 at Defendant’s counsel’s San Diego office location. On March 9, 

2016, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Defendant’s counsel that because the Plaintiffs are Mexican 

nationals residing in Mexico, they are unable to appear for their depositions anywhere within the 

United States because they lack the necessary immigration status to freely travel to the United 

States. 

 Despite this information, Defendant declined to re-notice the depositions and on March 10 

and 11, 2016, Plaintiffs failed to appear for their noticed depositions at Defendant’s San Diego 

office. Due to the failed deposition, on April 26, 2016, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant 

participated in an informal discovery conference with Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe regarding the 

parties’ deposition dispute. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued his desire for Defendant to depose Plaintiffs 

in Mexico, if not in person, by video using the services provided at the U.S. consulate in 

Mazatlan, Mexico. After the conference, counsel continued to meet and confer but Defendant 

refuses Plaintiffs’ proposed alternatives. The instant motion followed. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a “party who wants to depose a person 

by oral questions must give reasonable written notice to every other party [that] must state the 

time and place of the deposition and, if known, the deponent’s name and address.” Fed. R. Civ. 

Case 1:15-cv-00710-JAM-BAM Document 33 Filed 05/19/16 Page 2 of 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 

3

P. 30(b)(1). The Rules also note that a Court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party 

from oppression, undue burden or expense, including by “specifying terms, including time and 

place, for the disclosure or discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) & (c)(1)(B). 

Pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party propounding 

discovery or taking a deposition may seek an order compelling responses when an opposing party 

has failed to respond or has provided evasive or incomplete responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(3)(B). The Court, on motion, may order sanctions if a party fails, after being served with 

proper notice, to attend his own deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1). “[A]n evasive or incomplete 

disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “If the court where the discovery is taken orders a deponent to be sworn or to 

answer a question and the deponent fails to obey, the failure may be treated as contempt of court.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(1). 

ANAYLSIS 

1. Motion to Compel Depositions 

The parties’ filings raise one question: whether the deposition of foreign Plaintiffs should 

occur here in the forum district or in Mexico where Plaintiffs are located. Based on the record 

presented, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ depositions should proceed in California for several 

reasons. 

 First, Plaintiffs filed this action in this district and therefore they are subject to this Court’s 

jurisdiction and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 

governs depositions, and it provides that “[a] party who wants to depose a person by oral 

questions . . . must state the time and place of the deposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1). 

“Generally, this means that the examining party may unilaterally choose a deposition’s location.” 

Cadent Ltd. v. 3M Unitek Corp., 232 F.R.D. 625, 628 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Having filed a federal 

lawsuit, Defendant is entitled to take Plaintiffs’ depositions in order to defend against this suit. 

Therefore, to proceed with this action, Plaintiffs must cooperate in discovery, including being 

deposed. Absent a protective order, Plaintiffs have no grounds on which to object to sitting for 

their depositions at Defendant’s request. 

Case 1:15-cv-00710-JAM-BAM Document 33 Filed 05/19/16 Page 3 of 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

 Second, there are general presumptions that a Plaintiff’s deposition should proceed in the 

forum district because, unlike a Defendant, the Plaintiff is here by choice. Generally, plaintiffs are 

required to make themselves available for examination in the district in which suit was brought, 

because the plaintiffs selected the forum. See Fausto v. Credigy Servs. Corp., 251 F.R.D. 427, 

429 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (quoting Turner v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 119 F.R.D. 381, 383 

(M.D.N.C. 1988); see also South Seas Catamaran, Inc. v. The Motor Vessel “Leeway,” 120 

F.R.D. 17, 21 (D.N.J. 1998) (“[T]he general rule requir[es] plaintiff or its agents to appear for the 

taking of depositions in the district in which the suit is brought.”). This is because “courts 

ordinarily presume that a plaintiff may be deposed in the judicial district where the action was 

brought, inasmuch as the plaintiff, in selecting the forum, has effectively consented to 

participation in legal proceedings there.” Rulo v. Ricoh Ams. Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

153432, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2015) (quoting In re Outsidewall Tire Litig., 267 F.R.D. 466, 

471 (E.D. Va. 2010). 

 However, to overcome the general presumption that a Plaintiff’s deposition shall take 

place in the district in which the plaintiff filed suit, the “plaintiff has the burden of proving that 

undue hardship or exceptional or compelling circumstances justify his refusal to travel to his 

chosen forum.” Fenerjian v. Nong Shim Co., Ltd, 13CV04115WHODMR, 2016 WL 1019669, at 

*2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016); see also Rulo v. Ricoh Ams. Corp. (Rulo II), 2015 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 153432, 2015 WL 9688060 at *3, (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2015) (plaintiff must “persuasively 

demonstrate” that traveling to the forum for his deposition “would, for physical and financial 

reasons, be practically impossible, or that it would otherwise be fundamentally unfair”). 

Ultimately, the trial court has broad discretion to determine the appropriate place for a deposition. 

Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1994). 

 Plaintiffs have not demonstrated undue hardship or exceptional or compelling 

circumstances to justify their refusal to travel to their chosen forum. The fact that Plaintiffs reside 

out of the country and lack the knowledge on how to travel to this country for their properly 

noticed depositions does not amount to “extreme hardship” or “compelling circumstances.” 

Plaintiffs have not shown any evidence why the inconvenience or cost of attendance for Plaintiffs 

Case 1:15-cv-00710-JAM-BAM Document 33 Filed 05/19/16 Page 4 of 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 

5

in this case is any greater than it would be in any other case where a plaintiff resides outside the 

forum jurisdiction. There is no indication that Plaintiffs are physically unable to travel. Further, 

Plaintiffs have not provided any reason why Plaintiffs are unable to obtain visas to attend their 

depositions. Consequently, without any evidence or compelling justification, Plaintiffs are 

ordered to attend their depositions in the forum that they selected to prosecute this case against 

Defendant. 

Finally, in order for the Plaintiffs to avoid having their depositions taken in the United 

States, they must move for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which 

Plaintiffs have not done. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides that on a timely motion 

a Court, for good cause, may issue an order “to protect a party or person from annoyance, 

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one . . . forbidding inquiry 

into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters . . ..” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(D). To prevail on a motion for protective order, the party seeking the 

protection has the burden to demonstrate “particular and specific demonstration[s] of fact, as 

distinguished from conclusory statements. . . .” See Munoz v. PHH Corp., No. 08-759- DADBAM, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17254, 6-7 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2016). In assessing the motion, 

“the court should also balance the costs and burdens to each side.” U.S. v. $160,066.98 from Bank 

of Am., 202 F.R.D. 624, 626 (S.D. Cal. 2001). 

Rather than filing a motion for a protective order, Plaintiffs responded to the motion to 

compel with a brief and conclusory statement that “Plaintiffs continue to be unaware of any legal 

process that would allow for them to enter the United States legally.” (Doc. 31 at 13). This 

statement is not a “particular and specific demonstration” and is therefore insufficient to carry 

Plaintiffs’ burden of establishing a specific prejudice. Indeed, Plaintiffs have not provided the 

Court with any evidence supporting their allegations that they are unable to obtain visas and 

attend their depositions in the United States. Plaintiffs do not include any declarations supporting 

their opposition nor have Plaintiffs included any information about what steps they have 

undertaken to obtain visas to travel to the United States for their depositions. Thus, to the extent 

that specific evidence supporting Plaintiffs’ failed attempts at obtaining travel visas exists, it is 

Case 1:15-cv-00710-JAM-BAM Document 33 Filed 05/19/16 Page 5 of 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 

6

not before the Court.1 

 Conversely, Defendant has come forward with evidence to support its position that 

conducting the depositions in Mexico would present an extreme burden because the U.S. 

Department of State has issued a travel advisory for U.S. citizens traveling to Sinaloa, Mexico 

due to threats of safety and security posed by organized criminal groups in the region. Arbucci 

Decl., ¶ at 17. Recognizing that one of Mexico’s most powerful criminal organizations is based 

in Sinaloa, the U.S. Department of State has specifically cautioned U.S. citizens about visiting the 

state, and has recommended that citizens defer all non-essential travel to the state due to a high 

rate of violent crimes. Arbucci Decl., ¶ at 17, Exh. K. On balance, Plaintiffs have failed to meet 

their burden to demonstrate good cause for why the depositions should not take place here. 

 Accordingly, the depositions should go forward in the United States and Defendant’s 

Motion to Compel is GRANTED. 

2. Monetary Sanctions 

In the pending motion to compel, Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions for the 

expenses incurred in attempting to take Plaintiffs’ depositions on March 10, 2016. The Ninth 

Circuit has explained, “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 authorizes the district court, in its 

discretion, to impose a wide range of sanctions when a party fails to comply with the rules of 

discovery or with court orders enforcing those rules.” Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 

585, 589 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 

643, (1976)). In addition, Rule 37(d) provides that when a party fails to appear for his own 

deposition, the Court must award “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(b)(2)(C). 

Here, Defendant fails to present a persuasive reason for the Court to exercise its discretion 

to award expenses for the past nonappearance. The record demonstrates that Defendant was on 

notice prior to the scheduled depositions that Plaintiffs would be unable to attend. Despite 

 

1

 At the informal conference on April 26, 2016, Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that he has had difficulty directly 

contacting Plaintiffs.

Case 1:15-cv-00710-JAM-BAM Document 33 Filed 05/19/16 Page 6 of 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 

7

Defendant’s assertions to the contrary, Plaintiffs did not completely fail to respond to Defendant’s 

deposition notice. Defendant admits that, the day before the scheduled depositions, Plaintiffs’ 

counsel notified Defendant that Plaintiffs did not have the proper travel visas. While Plaintiffs’ 

conduct is noncompliance, the Court cannot say that Plaintiffs have acted in bad faith in failing to 

attend their depositions. Additionally, even if Plaintiffs had been more diligent in obtaining visas, 

it was reasonably foreseeable for Plaintiffs to experience complications in procuring their U.S. 

visas for international travel. The Court cautions Plaintiffs, however, that if they again fail to 

appear for their depositions, the Court will reconsider as possible sanctions an award of fees 

and/or a recommendation of dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 37. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendant City of Fresno’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Attendance at their 

Depositions is GRANTED; (Docs. 29, 31); 

2. Plaintiffs MARIA CARRILLO, ANTONIO MORENO, and P.Y.M.T., by and 

through Guardian Ad Litem Deibi Ontiveros are ORDERED to attend their 

depositions at the time and place noticed by Defendant in this District to occur no 

later than June 17, 2016; and 

3. Defendant City of Fresno’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs is DENIED, 

without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 19, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:15-cv-00710-JAM-BAM Document 33 Filed 05/19/16 Page 7 of 7