Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01644/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01644-11/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY HORSTMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1644 GEB DAD P

vs.

J. CANTU, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Before the court is defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff’s deposition and request for

sanctions and defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order. 

On January 10, 2007, this court issued a discovery order. On July 23, 2007, this

court issued a scheduling order. Pursuant to these orders, defendants were allowed to depose

plaintiff on or before November 16, 2007 in accordance with Rule 30(b)(1) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. 

According to counsel for the defendants, on November 16, 2007, correctional staff

arrived a plaintiff’s cell to escort him to the deposition but plaintiff refused. When the officers

explained to him that his case could be dismissed if he failed to attend the deposition, he 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01644-GEB-DAD Document 52 Filed 01/14/08 Page 1 of 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

 First, plaintiff failed to respond to defendants’ motion to compel. Pursuant to the order

1

filed in this action on January 12, 2006, all motions concerning discovery shall be briefed by the

parties pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m). (Order filed Jan. 12, 2006 at 3.) The same order cautions

that failure to oppose a motion timely may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. (Id. at

3.) Second, the discovery order filed in this action on January 10, 2007, provides that defendants

may depose plaintiff on the condition that, at least fourteen days before such a deposition, defendants

serve all parties with the notice required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1). (Order filed Jan. 10, 2007, at

1-2.) The order further provides that, “[i]f disputes arise about the parties’ obligations to respond

to requests for discovery, the parties shall comply with all pertinent rules,” including the briefing

requirements of Local Rule 78-230(m). (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff did not attend his properly served and

noticed deposition, did not seek an extension of time to prepare or a protective motion, and did not

respond to defendants’ motion to compel. 

2

responded that he did not care. Correctional staff asked plaintiff to exit his cell and attend the

deposition three times, but plaintiff refused on each occasion.

It is anticipated that the deposition reporting service will charge defendants at

least a $250 appearance fee with respect to the deposition that did not take place due to plaintiff’s

refusal to exit his cell. In addition, defense counsel states that approximately one hour was spent

preparing for the deposition and at least two and one half hours was devoted to preparing this

motion to compel. The Office of the Attorney General of the State of California currently bills at

a rate of $158.00 per hour for attorney time spent on behalf of clients who are billed for those

legal services. Accordingly, defendants contend that the total costs and attorney’s fees associated

with plaintiff’s refusal to participate in his deposition is $803.

Defendants argue that the court should impose the sanction of dismissal for

plaintiff’s failure to attend his properly noticed deposition or impose monetary sanctions. 

Alternatively, defendants argue that the court should compel plaintiff to participate in his

deposition outside the discovery date within forty-five days. 

First, dismissal is so harsh a penalty that it should be imposed as a sanction only

in extreme cases. Thompson v. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

(9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff has provided no justification for his refusal to attend his deposition. In

this regard, plaintiff is in violation of multiple court orders and rules. Nevertheless, plaintiff’s

1

failure to appear may have been willful or may have been due to his inability as a pro se litigant

Case 2:04-cv-01644-GEB-DAD Document 52 Filed 01/14/08 Page 2 of 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

3

to understand his discovery responsibilities. Accordingly, at the present time, the court will deny

defendants’ request to issue the sanction of dismissal in this action.

Although the court has broad discretion to impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 37,

the court finds that defendants’ request for monetary sanctions is premature under the current

circumstances. Again, as an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis plaintiff may have

misunderstood his rights and responsibilities regarding appearance at his deposition. Although

plaintiff’s inability to pay should not be the only reason for the court’s denial of monetary

sanctions, it can be considered. Warren v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Accordingly, at the present time, the court will deny defendants’ request for imposition of

monetary sanctions upon plaintiff.

The court will, however, compel plaintiff’s attendance at his deposition. The

undersigned has the authority under Local Rule 73-302(c)(1) to order plaintiff to submit to

deposition. Accordingly, the court will grant defendants’ motion to compel and will order

plaintiff to cooperate with defendants in the taking of his deposition. Any further refusal on

plaintiff’s part will result in a recommendation for dismissal of this action. 

Finally, defendants have shown good cause to modify the scheduling order. 

Under the current scheduling order, the parties were ordered to complete discovery by November

16, 2007, and file any dispositive motions by January 11, 2007. Defendants anticipate filing a

motion for summary judgment, but they contend that, through no fault of their own, they have

been unable to take plaintiff’s deposition. They believe that plaintiff’s deposition testimony is

necessary to prepare a motion for summary judgment. Good cause appearing, the court will

modify the scheduling order to allow defendants to file a dispositive motion. In addition, the

court will vacate scheduling order dates related to pretrial statements, pretrial conference, and

jury trial. The court will issue a revised scheduling order if necessary after defendants’ motion

for summary judgment has been ruled upon. The remainder of the scheduling order will remain

in effect. 

Case 2:04-cv-01644-GEB-DAD Document 52 Filed 01/14/08 Page 3 of 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

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ November 16, 2007 motion to compel is granted. Plaintiff shall

participate in his deposition within forty-five days of the date of this order. Any refusal by

plaintiff to cooperate in the taking of his deposition will result in a recommendation for dismissal

of this action.

2. Defendants’ November 16, 2007 request for dismissal and monetary sanctions

is denied without prejudice.

3. Defendants’ January 10, 2008 request to modify the scheduling order is

granted. The last day for defendants filing of a summary judgment motion is extended from

January 11, 2008, to May 2, 2008.

4. Dates related to the filing of pretrial statements, pretrial conference, and jury

trial set in the scheduling order filed July 23, 2007 are vacated. The court will issue a revised

scheduling order if necessary after defendants’ motion for summary judgment has been ruled

upon. 

5. Except as stated in this order, the remainder of the court’s July 23, 2007

scheduling order will remain in effect. 

DATED: January 14, 2008.

DAD:9

hors1644.mtc+

 

Case 2:04-cv-01644-GEB-DAD Document 52 Filed 01/14/08 Page 4 of 4