Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00294/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00294-8/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

WILLIE LEE BROOKS, II,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL CASSIE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00294-KJM-JDP (PC)

ORDER 

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL DEPOSITION AND TO MODIFY 

THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

QUASH DEPOSITION

ECF Nos. 39 & 40

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES BE DENIED

ECF No. 35

OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this case alleging that he was sexually 

assaulted during a medical examination. Pending are plaintiff’s motion to strike two affirmative 

defenses, ECF No. 35, plaintiff’s motion to quash or stay his deposition, ECF No. 39, and 

defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff’s deposition and to modify the scheduling order, ECF No. 

Case 2:23-cv-00294-KJM-JDP Document 42 Filed 09/09/24 Page 1 of 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

2

40. I recommend that plaintiff’s motion to strike be denied. I order that plaintiff’s motion to 

quash or stay his deposition is denied, and defendant’s motion is granted.

Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses

The motion at bar, ECF No. 35, is plaintiff’s second motion to strike affirmative defenses. 

I recommended that his first, ECF No. 25, be granted in part, ECF No. 33, and those 

recommendations are currently before the district judge. His current motion seeks to strike the 

two defenses I recommended upholding in my previous findings and recommendations. Nothing 

in this motion gives me cause to reconsider those earlier findings, and I recommend that this 

motion be denied for the same reasons described in the previous recommendations.

Motion to Quash or, in the Alternative, Stay Deposition for Sixty Days

Plaintiff moves to quash, or, alternatively, to stay his deposition because, in April 2024, he 

underwent back surgery. ECF No. 39 at 2. It is now September, and, in his motion, plaintiff 

indicated that a sixty-day stay of the deposition would be appropriate to allow for physical 

recovery. Id. at 2-3. Given that more than sixty days have passed, I will deny plaintiff’s motion 

to quash or stay the deposition. 

Motion to Compel and to Modify Scheduling Order

Defendants seek to compel plaintiff to sit for a deposition. ECF No. 40-1 at 4. 

Defendants state that plaintiff missed his previously noticed deposition and that plaintiff has not 

shown any basis for a protective order prohibiting such a deposition or limiting its scope. Id. at 2-

3. I agree. In his opposition, plaintiff argues that requiring him to sit for a deposition will force 

him to relive the trauma of the alleged incident. ECF No. 41 at 3-4. I am not unsympathetic to 

the mental strain plaintiff may endure in having to discuss the incident, but he has put that event 

at issue by bringing this suit; defendants must be allowed to defend themselves. I will grant 

defendants’ motion. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to quash or, in the alternative, stay deposition, ECF No. 39, is 

DENIED.

2. Defendants’ motion to compel and modify the scheduling order, ECF No. 40, is 

Case 2:23-cv-00294-KJM-JDP Document 42 Filed 09/09/24 Page 2 of 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

3

GRANTED. Defendants shall take plaintiff’s deposition within sixty days of this order’s entry. 

Any pre-trial motions are due within ninety days of this order’s entry.

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion to strike affirmative defenses, ECF 

No. 35, be DENIED.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00294-KJM-JDP Document 42 Filed 09/09/24 Page 3 of 3