Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00199/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00199-5/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

TOMEKO MALONE, )

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

PETERSON, )

) 

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 06-0199 OWW DLB P 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

OPPOSITION TO DEPOSITION AND

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S

ATTENDANCE AT HIS DEPOSITION

[DOCS 16, 18]

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

amended complaint filed on February 22, 2006 for excessive force against the named defendant. 

On June 18, 2007, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant’s May 8, 2007 Notice of Deposition,

scheduling plaintiff’s deposition for June 21, 2007. Plaintiff objected to the notice arguing that

defendant had not yet filed a “motion for deposition.” After plaintiff refused to attend his

deposition, defendant filed a motion to compel his attendance.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(1), a party may take the oral deposition of

any person, including a party, without leave of court. Plaintiff’s objection to the Notice of

Deposition is therefore without merit and overruled. Defendant properly noticed plaintiff’s

deposition for June 21, 2007 and plaintiff failed to appear. Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff’s

Case 1:06-cv-00199-LJO -DLB Document 22 Filed 08/06/07 Page 1 of 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

attendance at his deposition is therefore GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to appear at his deposition

as noticed by defendant. Plaintiff is advised that his failure to cooperate in discovery may result in

the imposition of sanctions which may include dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 4, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00199-LJO -DLB Document 22 Filed 08/06/07 Page 2 of 2