Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01375/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01375-10/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY WAYNE JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. W. McELROY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1375 GEB CKD P

ORDER

This pro se prisoner civil rights action proceeds against eight defendants. (See ECF No. 

46.) All seek to compel plaintiff to complete his deposition, which began on July 17, 2015. (ECF 

Nos. 63 & 65.) Defendants also seek monetary sanctions for plaintiff’s refusal to complete the 

July 17, 2015 deposition in defendant Dingfelder’s presence. (Id.)

Plaintiff has not opposed defendants’ motion. Rather, he has filed his own motion for a 

protective order “excluding Defendants and other prison officials from [the] deposition room 

during any future Court-Ordered deposition.” (ECF Nos. 69, 70 & 71.) Defendants oppose this 

motion. (ECF No. 72.) 

For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant defendants’ motion to compel and 

deny plaintiff’s motion for a protective order. However, defendants’ counsel will be ordered to 

confer with plaintiff on minimizing any intimidation to plaintiff caused by defendants’ presence.

////

Case 2:13-cv-01375-GEB-CKD Document 74 Filed 08/31/15 Page 1 of 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

2

I. Motion to Compel

Defendants’ motion includes a declaration by attorney Janine K. Jeffery describing the 

events of July 17, 2015. (ECF No. 63-2.) She states that, at the beginning of plaintiff’s properly 

noticed deposition, he refused to participate with Dingfelder in the room. (Id., ¶ 3.) Jeffery 

explained that Dingfelder had a right to attend the deposition and informed plaintiff that she 

would seek sanctions if he refused to be deposed. (Id.) 

Jeffery told plaintiff she wished to have Dingfelder present to help her know what 

questions to ask. (Id., ¶ 4-5.) Plaintiff refused to identify what harm would be caused by 

Dingfelder’s presence. (Id., ¶ 5.) Jeffery offered to have Dingfelder sit out of plaintiff’s line of 

sight, with his back to plaintiff, but plaintiff refused this offer. (Id.) Despite Jeffery’s efforts to 

meet and confer with plaintiff and accommodate him, he would not tell her what harm would be 

caused by Dingfelder’s presence. (Id., ¶ 6.) An attached excerpt from the deposition accords 

with this summary. (Jeffery Decl., Ex. B.) 

Defendants seek an order compelling plaintiff to appear for his deposition within thirty 

days, and to be deposed in the presence of defendants, if defendants so choose. (See ECF No. 

63-3.) They also seek $3,259 in sanctions, the amount of fees and costs incurred in trying to take 

plaintiff’s deposition on July 17, 2015. (See id.) 

To proceed with this action, plaintiff must cooperate in discovery, including being 

deposed. Thus the factors of timeliness, good cause, utility, and materiality weigh in favor of 

granting the motion to compel plaintiff’s deposition. See CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Redisi, 309 F.3d 

988, 993 (7th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(i), 37(d)(1)(A)(i). The court will grant 

defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to appear for his deposition within thirty days. Absent a 

protective order, discussed below, plaintiff has no grounds on which to object to the presence of 

any defendant at his deposition.

As plaintiff is an indigent prisoner, the court will deny defendants’ request for monetary 

sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 37(a)(5)(A)(iii). However, if plaintiff again refuses to subject 

himself to deposition, the court will consider the sanction of dismissing this action pursuant to 

Rule 37.

Case 2:13-cv-01375-GEB-CKD Document 74 Filed 08/31/15 Page 2 of 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

3

II. Motion for Protective Order 

Plaintiff moves for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which 

provides that the court may, “for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from 

annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden[,]” including “designating the persons 

who may be present while the discovery is conducted.” He also invokes Rule 30(d)(3)(A), which 

provides that “[a]t any time during deposition, the deponent or a party may move to terminate or 

limit it on the ground that it is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably 

annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party.”

Plaintiff seeks an order barring defendants and other prison officials from any future 

deposition of him. He asks that only defendants’ attorneys and the court reporter be allowed to 

attend his deposition. (ECF No. 70 at 4-5.) 

Plaintiff asserts that, at his July 17, 2015 deposition, he cooperated while being deposed 

by counsel for defendants Lobato, Sharp, Jochim, Perez, and Sullivan. Forty-five minutes into 

the deposition, Ms. Jeffery – counsel for defendants McElroy, Dingfelder, and Lish – informed 

plaintiff that Dingfelder would be present while she questioned him. Plaintiff asserts that this was 

a ploy to intimidate and harass him, and that he refused to participate further without seeking a 

protective order. (ECF No. 70 at 3-4.) 

Plaintiff provides no specific reasons why Dingfelder’s presence amounts to intimidation 

or harassment. He refers to his allegations in the First Amended Complaint that Dingfelder 

maliciously beat him and falsified reports against him, and asserts that he continues to suffer 

retaliation at the hands of defendants and other prison officials. He “believes that he may be at 

additional risk if other prison officials hear answers to questions posed at the deposition” and 

states that he overheard Dingfelder “discussing the deposition with two other correctional staff 

members.” (ECF No. 70 at 3-4.) Plaintiff does not address Ms. Jeffery’s offer to have Dingfelder 

sit out of plaintiff’s line of sight. He asserts that Dingfelder stood directly behind him, creating 

an atmosphere of intimidation and harassment. (Id. at 4.) 

The Federal Rules do not specifically state who may attend a deposition. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(c)(1). Generally, parties and their counsel have a right to attend every deposition. See 

Case 2:13-cv-01375-GEB-CKD Document 74 Filed 08/31/15 Page 3 of 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

4

Galella v. Onassis, 487 F.2d 986, 997 (2d Cir. 1973). Under Rule 30(b), “the court has the power 

to exclude even a party, although such an exclusion should be ordered rarely indeed. [It] is 

appropriate only to protect the deponent from embarrassment or ridicule intended by the calling 

party.” (Id.) “Exclusion of witnesses from depositions . . . should be rarely ordered, and should 

be permitted only upon a heightened showing of ‘exceptional’ or ‘compelling’ circumstances 

necessary to protect the deponent.” EEOC v. JBS USA, LLC, 2012 WL 934205, *2 (D. Colo. 

Mar. 20, 2012). 

Here, plaintiff has not shown exceptional or compelling circumstances that warrant 

excluding Dingfelder or any other defendant. Counsel can accommodate plaintiff’s concerns by 

having defendants sit outside plaintiff’s line of sight or in the location least intimidating to 

plaintiff. Because plaintiff and defendants’ attorneys should confer on this issue when plaintiff 

resumes his deposition (as attempted by Ms. Jeffery at the previous deposition), the court will 

issue a limited protective order to this effect. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

Plaintiff requests that the July 17, 2015 deposition transcript be ordered “null and void.” 

He also requests that, if the protective order is denied, defendants be ordered to depose him via 

written questions. The court will deny these requests, as defendants are entitled to orally depose a 

party, and there is no reason to nullify the earlier portion of plaintiff’s deposition. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 30(a)(1).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to compel deposition (ECF No. 63) is granted in part and denied in 

part as follows: 

a. Plaintiff is ordered to appear to complete his deposition; 

b. The deposition can be taken on ten days’ notice and must be completed within 30 days 

of this order; and 

c. The motion is denied as to monetary sanctions. 

////

////

////

Case 2:13-cv-01375-GEB-CKD Document 74 Filed 08/31/15 Page 4 of 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

5

2. Plaintiff’s motion for protective order (ECF No. 69) is denied. 

3. If one or more defendants attend plaintiff’s deposition, defendants’ counsel shall meet 

and confer with plaintiff so as to minimize any resulting intimidation to plaintiff. 

Dated: August 28, 2015

2 / jone1375.mtc

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-01375-GEB-CKD Document 74 Filed 08/31/15 Page 5 of 5