Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-01115/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-01115-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JACOB S. SILVERMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DUANE CHRISTIAN, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 18-01115 BLF (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

COMPEL DEPOSITION OF 

PLAINTIFF; GRANTING MOTION 

TO CONTINUE DISPOSITIVE 

MOTION DEADLINE 

 (Docket Nos. 27 & 28) 

Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On May 9, 2018, the Court ordered service on Defendant Duane Christian 

for violating Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of 

grievances based on his refusal to allow Plaintiff to file grievances. (Docket No. 5.) 

Defendants’ dispositive motion is currently due ninety-one days from the filing of the 

Court’s August 20, 2018 order, i.e., no later than November 19, 2018. (Docket No. 18 at 

4.) 

On October 22, 2018, Defendants filed a notice and motion to dismiss this action on 

the grounds that Plaintiff, without good cause, had unjustifiably refused to appear for his 

properly noticed deposition. (Docket No. 27.) In the alternative, Defendants request an 

order from the Court compelling Plaintiff to submit to a deposition pursuant to Federal 

Case 5:18-cv-01115-BLF Document 31 Filed 11/06/18 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a). (Id.) According to Defendants, they served Plaintiff a 

Notice of Taking Deposition under Rule 30, stating that the deposition was set for October 

17, 2018, at 8:00 a.m. at the Humboldt County Correctional Facility (“HCCF”) in Eureka, 

California. (Id. at 2.) On that date, Defendants’ counsel appeared at HCCF, but Plaintiff 

refused to leave his jail cell and be escorted to the deposition by jail officials. (Id. at 2-3.) 

When Defendants’ counsel spoke with Plaintiff at his cell, Plaintiff again refused to come 

out of his cell and appear for his deposition, citing a motion he had recently filed that 

opposed the deposition and requested an attorney be present for the deposition. (Id. at 3.) 

At that time, counsel had not yet received any such motion. (Id.) 

Plaintiff filed an “Opposition of Surprise Notice of Taking Deposition,” which was 

docketed on October 15, 2018. (Docket No. 25.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendants must 

seek leave of court to take his deposition and that Defendants did not comply with Rule 

30(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) Plaintiff also seeks an attorney to be 

appointed to represent him at the deposition in order to protect his rights. (Id.) With 

respect to the necessity of a court order, Plaintiff is simply mistaken. In the Court’s 

August 20, 2018 Order, the Court ordered discovery to be taken in accordance with Rule 

30(a)(2), and stated that no further court order is required before the parties may conduct 

discovery. (Docket No. 18 at 6.) Furthermore, the Court has already denied Plaintiff’s 

motion for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances. (See Docket No. 

10.) Facing a deposition is not an exceptional circumstance that warrants appointment of 

counsel. Accordingly, the request is DENIED. 

In light of the foregoing, Defendants’ request for a court order compelling Plaintiff 

to submit to a deposition under Rule 37(a) is GRANTED. Unless Plaintiff prefers the 

more severe sanction of dismissal of this entire action for his refusal to appear for the 

deposition, he shall appear for and submit to an oral deposition upon proper notice by 

Defendants’ counsel. 

Case 5:18-cv-01115-BLF Document 31 Filed 11/06/18 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Defendants’ application to continue the deadline to file a motion for summary 

judgment, (Docket No. 28), is GRANTED. Defendants are granted an extension of time 

until February 18, 2019, to file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive 

motion. 

 This order terminates Docket Nos. 27 and 28. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Order Granting M. to Compel; Grant EOT to file MSJ 

PRO-SE\BLF\CR.18\01115Silverman_eot-msj 

Case 5:18-cv-01115-BLF Document 31 Filed 11/06/18 Page 3 of 3