Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01991/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01991-21/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 

REYNALDA MOLINA, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF VISALIA, et. al. 

Defendants. 

No. 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB 

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS 

(Doc. Nos. 61, 73, 78) 

 Plaintiffs filed the complaint in this action on December 4, 2013. (Doc. No. 1.) On 

November 25, 2015, defendants filed a motion for an order to show cause why sanctions should 

not issue due to Jaime Magana’s failure to appear for deposition after being served with a 

subpoena requiring him to do so. (Doc. No. 61.) The matter was referred to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 In response to that motion, on December 1, 2015, the assigned magistrate judge issued an 

order to show cause requiring Mr. Magana to appear in court on December 23, 2015 and show 

cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to appear at his deposition. Mr. Magana 

appeared at the OSC hearing, the assigned magistrate judge discharged the order to show cause 

and ordered him to appear for his deposition on December 31, 2015.1

 (Doc. No. 72.) 

                                                            

1

 Apparently, Mr. Magana appeared for his rescheduled deposition since defendants’ counsel has 

not indicated otherwise to the court. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 82 Filed 02/01/16 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 

27 

28 

2 

Nonetheless, on December 29, 2015, the magistrate judge filed a findings and recommendations 

recommending that Jaime Magana be found in contempt due to his failure to appear at his 

scheduled deposition and be ordered to pay defendants $1,302.50 ($1,040 in attorney fees and 

$262.50 in court reporter fees). Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties 

and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen days (14) days from the 

date of service. 

Mr. Magana filed objections to the findings and recommendations on January 8, 2016. 

(Doc. No. 78.)2 In those hand-written objections, he explains again that he had a court 

appearance in his own legal matter in Porterville, California the same day as his deposition in 

this action was scheduled for and represents that he has the court paper work to prove that he 

appeared in his own matter that day. He also repeats his not entirely persuasive explanation that 

he had lost his deposition subpoena and had no way to contact defense counsel to notify them in 

advance of the conflict.3

 Finally, he represents to the court that he has a family with small 

children, works for the minimum wage and cannot afford to pay to defendants the amount 

recommended by the findings and recommendations. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the undersigned declines 

to adopt the findings and recommendations. The record in this case reflects that defense counsel 

has experienced considerable difficulty in securing the attendance of witnesses at deposition. It 

also establishes that in this instance the witness, Jaime Magana, failed to contact defense counsel 

directly to notify them that his own court date conflicted with the deposition to which he was 

subpoenaed and that his explanation for failing to do so was a weak one. Nonetheless, defense 

counsel’s motion before the assigned magistrate judge also established that six days prior to Mr. 

Magana’s scheduled deposition, plaintiff’s counsel notified defense counsel that it was his 

                                                            

2

 Defendants also filed objections but only to point out an immaterial typographical error in the 

findings and recommendations. 

3

 It appears clear that Mr. Magana could have easily obtained the contact information for 

defense counsel from plaintiff’s counsel, even though the latter did not represent him. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 82 Filed 02/01/16 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 

27 

28 

3 

understanding that “Jaimie Managua (sic) will not be at his scheduled deposition because he has 

a court appearance in another matter.” (Doc. No. 61-1 at 19.). It was also undisputed that the 

day before the scheduled deposition of Magana plaintiff’s counsel advised defense counsel that 

he had been informed by someone other than the witness, presumably plaintiff herself, that Mr. 

Magana would not be able to appear for his scheduled deposition. (Id. at 8-10, 20.) Despite this 

knowledge, defense counsel chose to commence the deposition and to place on the record Mr. 

Magana’s failure to appear. While the court can understand defense counsel’s frustration, 

apparently in part caused by difficulties encountered in obtaining the appearance of other 

witnesses, under these circumstances that frustration does not justify the finding of contempt and 

the imposition of $1,302.50 in sanctions against a non-party witness who has since appeared at 

his deposition as ordered by the court and apparently cooperated in those proceedings. 

As one district court of this circuit has explained: 

A party moving for civil contempt must prove that the non-moving 

party violated a court order by clear and convincing evidence. 

FTC v. Enforma Natural Prods., Inc., 362 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th 

Cir.2004). The burden then shifts to the contemnor to demonstrate 

she took every reasonable step to comply with the subpoena and 

explain why compliance was not possible. Forsythe v. Brown, 281 

F.R.D. 577, 588 (D. Nev. 2012) (plaintiffs’ expert witness failed to 

demonstrate he took reasonable steps to comply with defendants’ 

subpoenas, held in contempt of court, and ordered to pay moving 

party's attorney’s fees and costs incurred in filing order to show 

cause regarding contempt) (citing Stone v. City of San Francisco, 

968 F.2d 850, 856 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1081 

(1993). In making its contempt determination, a district court 

considers the witness’ history of non-compliance and the extent to 

which the witness failed to comply during the pendency of the 

motion for contempt. Id. (citing Bademyan v. Receivable 

Management Services Corp., 2009 WL 605789, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 

2009)). 

Martinez v. City of Avondale, No. CV-12-1837-PHX-LOA, 2013 WL 5705291, at *4 (D. Az. 

Oct. 18, 2013). See also Morgutia-Johnson v. City of Fresno, No.1:14-cv-0127-LJO-SKO, 2015 

WL 1021123, *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2015). 

 Here, witness Magana has represented to both the assigned magistrate judge and the 

undersigned that he had a court appearance in his own action scheduled for the same day as his 

noticed deposition and has offered to present evidence that he did in fact appear in that court on 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 82 Filed 02/01/16 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 

27 

28 

4 

the day in question. Defendants have not presented any evidence to the contrary. While Mr. 

Magana’s explanation for not notifying defense counsel directly of the scheduling conflict is 

undeniably a weak one, the record establishes that defense counsel were aware of the alleged 

conflict several days before the scheduled deposition. The undersigned has also considered that 

Mr. Magana has no history of noncompliance with court orders and in fact appears to have 

complied with the magistrate judge’s order issued at the order to show cause hearing. While his 

manner of communication was flawed, the third party witness appears to have had an adequate 

explanation for why he was unable to appear on the scheduled date and thereafter has cooperated 

in the taking of his deposition. Under these circumstances, he should not be held in contempt 

and the imposition of sanctions under Rule 45(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not 

appropriate.4

 

Accordingly, the findings and recommendations filed December 29, 2015 (Doc. No. 73), 

will not be adopted, a contempt citation will not issue and defendant’s motion for imposition of 

sanctions against non-party witness Jaime Magana (Doc. No. 61) is denied in its entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 1, 2016 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

                                                            

4

 Defendants improperly sought imposition of sanctions under Rule 37. As the assigned 

magistrate judge recognized, sanctions against a non-party witness such as Mr. Magana for 

failure to attend his deposition pursuant to subpoena are available only under the contempt 

provisions of Rule 45. See Morgutia-Johnson v. City of Fresno, No.1:14-cv-0127-LJO-SKO, 

2015 WL 1021123, *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2015); Martinez v. City of Pittsburg, No. C 11-01017 

SBA (LB), 2012 WL 699462, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2012). 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 82 Filed 02/01/16 Page 4 of 4