Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01248/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01248-27/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

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 Horace Thomas is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. 

On August 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ notice of taking Plaintiff’s 

deposition. Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 117.) 

On August 7, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel. (ECF 

No. 118.)

On August 7, 2015, Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition to taking of his 

deposition. (ECF No. 119.) For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ 

notice of taking his deposition has no merit and Plaintiff is required to attend the deposition as noticed 

by Defendants.

On January 9, 2015, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 53.) The 

discovery deadline is set for September 9, 2015. The order also provided that Defendants could 

HORACE THOMAS, a.k.a Horace Bell,

 Plaintiff,

v.

S HEBERLING, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION 

TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF TAKING 

PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION

[ECF Nos. 117, 119]

Case 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB Document 121 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 3
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

depose Plaintiff upon service of notice of the deposition at least fourteen days prior to the deposition 

date. 

On July 29, 2015, Defendants timely noticed Plaintiff’s deposition to take place on September 

1, 2015. (ECF No. 117 at 3-4.) Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ notice of deposition. 

In the deposition notice, Defendants requested that Plaintiff bring certain categories of 

documents to his deposition. (ECF No. 117 at 3-4.) Plaintiff indicates that he has no documents 

responsive to Defendants’ requests, and therefore he cannot attend his deposition. (Id. at 1-2.) 

Plaintiff also argues that defense counsel should “cooperate and provide Plaintiff a copy of all 

documents contested and all the documents requested to be produced by Plaintiff.” (Id. at 2.) 

Plaintiff has not presented a valid justification for being relieved of his obligation to attend and 

meaningfully participate in his timely-noticed deposition, as required by the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and this Court’s discovery and scheduling order. If Plaintiff is not in possession of any 

documents responsive to the requests set forth in Defendants’ notice of deposition, Plaintiff is under 

no obligation to bring any documents to his deposition. However, Plaintiff is required to attend and 

provide deposition testimony under oath. To the extent, Plaintiff contends defense counsel should be 

required to produce documents to him, Defendants submit that they have answered all of Plaintiff’s 

discovery requests by way of substantive answers or valid objections, and this Court has previously 

denied all six of Plaintiff’s motions to compel additional discovery. (ECF Nos. 103, 106, 107, 115.) 

Defendants are therefore under no obligation to produce additional discovery to Plaintiff. 

Furthermore, pursuant to the Court’s discovery and scheduling order all written discovery requests are 

due forty-five days after the request is served, and all discovery must be served sufficiently in advance 

of the discovery deadline to permit time to file a response and any corresponding motion to compel. 

In this case, all written discovery was required to be served by July 26, 2015, at the latest. 

There is also no valid justification for Plaintiff’s request to delay his deposition by sixty days. 

The discovery deadline is September 9, 2015, and Defendants are required to depose Plaintiff by that 

date. Plaintiff has not requested nor does Plaintiff present good cause for modification of the 

discovery and scheduling order, and there is no basis to delay the taking of his deposition by sixty 

days. 

Case 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB Document 121 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ notice of the taking of his 

deposition on September 1, 2015, is DENIED. Plaintiff is required to attend and meaningfully

participate in his timely-noticed deposition, and Plaintiff is advised that failure to attend and/or 

cooperate in his deposition may result in the imposition of sanctions, including monetary sanctions 

and/or dismissal of the action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB Document 121 Filed 08/18/15 Page 3 of 3