Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00846/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00846-12/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

CUONG HUY DAO,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. TABOR, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 22-cv-0846 TLN KJN P

ORDER

Introduction

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against 

defendants filed September 21, 2023. (ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff moves for sanctions on the 

grounds that his request for exclusion of correctional officers from his deposition was wrongly 

denied. (Id.) For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is denied. 

Background

In the pending motion, plaintiff alleges that defendants scheduled plaintiff’s deposition for 

September 15, 2023, from 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. (ECF No. 45 at 2.) The deposition transcript 

reflects that the deposition was conducted via videoconference. (ECF No. 47-1 at 31.) The court 

Case 2:22-cv-00846-TLN-CSK Document 66 Filed 12/13/23 Page 1 of 7
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

reporter and defense counsel were not in the deposition room with plaintiff. (Id.) 

Plaintiff alleges that Correctional Officers Campos and De La Cruz escorted plaintiff to 

the treatment center for the deposition. (ECF No. 45 at 3.) Plaintiff requested a confidential 

setting for the deposition in order to discuss his complaints. (Id.) Plaintiff asked Correctional 

Officers Campos and De La Cruz to wait outside the glass door. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that 

Deputy Attorney General Patrick objected to plaintiff’s request for the correctional officers to 

wait outside, stating that the deposition did not require a confidential setting. (Id.) Correctional 

Officers Campos and De La Cruz stayed in the room. (Id.) 

Plaintiff alleges that he asked Correctional Officer Campos to ask a sergeant about his 

reasonable request. (Id.) Correctional Officer Campos left the room to confer with the sergeant. 

(Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Deputy Attorney General Patrick got agitated and asked the court 

reporter to get started on the deposition. (Id.) 

Correctional Officer Campos returned a minute later and stated that the sergeant told him 

to stay in the room where the deposition was being conducted. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff disagreed and 

noted with the court reporter that his due process rights were being violated. (Id.) Deputy 

Attorney General Patrick then claimed that he had no control over California Department of 

Corrections (“CDCR”) policy regarding the presence of correctional officers at depositions. 

(Id.) 

Plaintiff speculates that Correctional Officers Campos and De La Cruz planned to report 

back to defendants Hibbard and Tabor regarding what was spoken about them at the deposition. 

(Id. at 5.) 

In the pending motion, plaintiff alleges that the presence of Correctional Officers Campos 

and De La Cruz in the room where his deposition was conducted violated his right to due process, 

California Code of Regulations Title 15, § 3178 and the discovery and scheduling order issued in 

this action. Plaintiff requests that defendants be sanctioned pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

On October 10, 2023, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. 

(ECF No. 48.) In this opposition, defendants claimed that “per CDCR policy, correctional 

Case 2:22-cv-00846-TLN-CSK Document 66 Filed 12/13/23 Page 2 of 7
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

officers remained in the room with plaintiff for the duration of the deposition.” (Id. at 1.) 

Defendants argued that the authorities plaintiff cited in support of his motion, i.e., the court’s 

discovery and scheduling order, § 3178(m) and Rule 11, did not authorize sanctions for 

conducting a deposition in the presence of a third party. (Id. at 2.) Defendants also argued that in 

Howell v. Johnson, 2021 WL 4523719 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2021), the court found that plaintiff was 

not entitled to a deposition outside the presence of correctional officers. (Id.)

On October 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a second motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 50.) On 

October 26, 2023, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s second motion for sanctions. (ECF 

No. 53.) In the second opposition, defendants claimed that at no time during the deposition did 

defense counsel refuse plaintiff’s request that correctional officers exit the room. (Id. at 1.) 

Defendants also claimed that defense counsel had no control over Correctional Officers Campos, 

De La Cruz or any other CDCR employee. (Id. at 1-2.) Defendants claimed that the decision to 

keep correctional officers in the same room as plaintiff for the duration of the deposition fell 

solely within the discretion of CDCR, not defense counsel. (Id. at 2.) Citing plaintiff’s 

deposition testimony, defendants also claimed that plaintiff agreed to proceed with the deposition 

and failed to seek a protective order in advance of his properly noticed deposition. (Id.)

On November 8, 2023, the undersigned issued an order construing plaintiff’s second 

motion for sanctions as a reply to defendants’ first opposition. (ECF No. 57.) The undersigned 

also ordered defendants to file further briefing addressing the following matters: 1) whether 

defense counsel communicated with any CDCR official prior to the September 15, 2023 

deposition regarding the presence of correctional officers and/or the handcuffing of plaintiff 

during the video conference deposition; 2) the CDCR policy, referred to in the opposition, 

requiring or permitting correctional officers to remain in the room with plaintiff for the duration 

of the video conference deposition; 3) any security concerns based on which plaintiff’s request 

for exclusion of correctional officers was denied; and 4) whether and/or how the handcuffing of 

plaintiff during the deposition factored into the decision denying plaintiff’s request for exclusion 

of correctional officers (i.e., could plaintiff be uncuffed so that he could take notes?). (Id. at 7.) 

////

Case 2:22-cv-00846-TLN-CSK Document 66 Filed 12/13/23 Page 3 of 7
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

On December 1, 2023, defendants filed a response to the further briefing order. (ECF No. 

65.) In declarations attached to the further briefing, both defense counsel who attended the video 

conference deposition state that prior to being sworn to testify, and prior to the recorded 

proceedings, plaintiff informed defense counsel that he did not want California State PrisonSacramento (“CSP-Sac”) correctional officers present during the deposition. (ECF Nos. 65-1 at 

2, ECF No. 65-2 at 2.) Defense counsel state that one of the correctional officers briefly left the 

room to confer with a sergeant or supervisor. (ECF Nos. 65-1 at 2, ECF No. 65-2 at 2.) Upon 

returning, the officer informed plaintiff that they (the correctional officers) were required to 

remain present. (ECF Nos. 65-1 at 2, ECF No. 65-2 at 2.) The correctional officers then situated 

themselves in the rear of the room and remained there throughout the proceedings. (ECF Nos. 

65-1 at 2, ECF No. 65-2 at 2.)

Both defense counsel who attended the video conference deposition state that they did not 

communicate with any prison official regarding the conditions for the deposition, whether 

correctional officers could or should be present, or whether plaintiff should remain in handcuffs 

or other restraints during the deposition. (ECF Nos. 65-1 at 2, 65-2 at 2.) 

In support of the further briefing, defendants submitted the declaration of CSP-Sac 

Associate Warden V. Martinez. (ECF No. 65-4.) In his declaration, Associate Warden Martinez 

addresses other issues raised in the further briefing order. Associate Warden Martinez states that

remote court appearances and depositions conducted by videoconferencing technology are 

governed by CSP-Sac Operational Procedure (“OP”) 143. (Id. at 2.) This policy was 

implemented to assure that on-site proceedings are conducted in an efficient, safe and secure 

manner. (Id.) Correctional staff overseeing these proceedings are trained in the use of 

videoconferencing equipment to assure a reliable connection to other participants. (Id.) 

Correctional staff are also tasked with escorting an inmate to and from his scheduled appearance 

and remaining nearby the proceedings to provide security coverage throughout. (Id.)

Associate Warden Martinez states that videoconference proceedings are not deemed 

confidential, though it is common for correctional staff to afford privacy to inmates who are 

represented by counsel to meet and discuss matters outside the presence of staff, at their request, 

Case 2:22-cv-00846-TLN-CSK Document 66 Filed 12/13/23 Page 4 of 7
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

5

prior to or following the proceedings so as not to overhear privileged and confidential 

communications between inmates and their attorneys. (Id.) Correctional staff are expected to 

maintain visual observation of inmates and their attorneys throughout, including during 

confidential conversations. (Id.) Typically, such conversations are conducted in separate 

interview areas or small rooms nearby. (Id.)

Associate Warden Martinez states that plaintiff’s deposition was conducted at CSP-Sac 

Facility A’s Mental Health Treatment Center (“MHTC”). The MHTC includes a room 

designated for court appearances and other related activities requiring the use of 

videoconferencing equipment. (Id.) A minimum of two correctional officers are assigned to the 

MHTC videoconferencing room during such proceedings. (Id.) They are tasked with assuring 

the equipment and audio and video is functioning properly and are often summoned by inmates to 

help adjust the equipment’s settings. (Id.) Accordingly, staff are expected to remain nearby 

should such needs arise. (Id.)

Associate Warden Martinez states that other factors also impact the manner in which 

correctional staff facilitate remote proceedings. (Id.) Among them are the placement score and 

custody status of an inmate, as these factors dictate the degree of oversight necessary for staff to 

conduct the proceedings in a safe and secure manner. (Id. at 2-3.) Any inmate designated as 

“maximum custody” must be escorted in hand restraints, such as handcuffs or waist restraints, at 

all times. (Id. at 3.) This may include time spent in the proceedings, based on an inmate’s 

classification and placement score. (Id.)

Associate Warden Martinez states that at the time of plaintiff’s September 15, 2023 

deposition, plaintiff was designated as “maximum custody,” and had a placement score of 452. 

(Id.) At the time of plaintiff’s most recent classification review, he had committed two 

aggravated battery offenses against staff, assaulted an inmate on another occasion, and disobeyed 

an order by custody staff. (Id.) In addition, at the time of the deposition, plaintiff was also 

classified as a Level IV security inmate, the level signifying inmates within the prison population 

deemed the most dangerous and requiring the highest degree of security precautions, including 

handcuffing and constant observation. (Id.) Maximum custody inmates must remain “under the 

Case 2:22-cv-00846-TLN-CSK Document 66 Filed 12/13/23 Page 5 of 7
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

6

direct supervision and control of custody staff” at all times. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15, 

§3377.1(a)(1)(C). (Id.)

Associate Warden Martinez states that although inmates with lower classifications and 

placement scores may be allowed to attend proceedings without hand restraints, maximum 

custody inmates and those classified Level IV are required to remain in hand restraints 

throughout. (Id.) Associate Warden Martinez states that although there are windows in the 

MHTC video conferencing room where staff can view the proceedings from outside the room, the 

officers’ decision to remain inside the room is consistent with policies governing maximum 

custody inmate security measures. (Id. at 3-4.)

In the December 1, 2023 pleading, defendants also provided the declaration of 

Correctional Officer Campos who escorted plaintiff to the deposition. (ECF No. 65-3.) Officer 

Campos states that plaintiff wore waist chain restraints during the deposition. (Id. at 2.) Unlike 

traditional handcuffs, waist restraints have a chain affixed to the waist that allow an individual to 

move each of his or her arms to the side and to the front. (Id.) Plaintiff remained in these waist 

chain restraints during the entirety of the deposition and was never required to wear more 

restrictive handcuffs. (Id.) Officer Campos states that in no way was plaintiff secured in a 

manner that prevented him from moving his arms, retrieving paperwork or taking handwritten 

notes. (Id.) Officer Campos states that plaintiff brought materials with him to the deposition, 

including paperwork which he held up to the camera and referenced multiple times during the 

deposition. (Id.) 

In their declarations, defense counsel state that other than plaintiff indicating at the 

beginning of the deposition that he could not raise his right hand to take the oath, they cannot 

recall another instance, whether on or off the record, when plaintiff advised that hand restraints 

prevented him from taking notes or accessing materials necessary for the deposition. (ECF Nos 

65-1 at 2, 65-2 at 2.) Both defense counsel recall several instances later in the deposition where 

plaintiff was able to access paperwork he brought to the deposition, refer to it during his 

testimony, and hold it up in view of the camera to identify the documents. (ECF Nos. 65-1 at 2, 

65-2 at 2.)

Case 2:22-cv-00846-TLN-CSK Document 66 Filed 12/13/23 Page 6 of 7
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

7

Discussion

As discussed in the November 8, 2023 order, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(2) 

provides the legal authority for plaintiff’s pending motion. Rule 30(d)(2) states that the court 

may impose “appropriate sanctions—including the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees 

incurred by any party—on a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of the 

deponent.” 

Defendants’ further briefing reflects that correctional officers remained in the room with 

plaintiff for the duration of the deposition and applied waist restraints based on plaintiff’s 

maximum custody status, placement score of 452 and record of having committed two aggravated 

battery offenses against staff, assault of an inmate and failure to obey an order by custody staff. 

Defendants’ further briefing also reflects that plaintiff was able to access his paperwork and 

otherwise participate in the deposition despite wearing waist restraints. Based on these 

circumstances, the undersigned finds that the presence of correctional officers in the room with 

plaintiff for the duration of the deposition and the application of waist restraints was not 

unreasonable. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 30(d)(2) is denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 

45) is denied.

Dated: December 13, 2023

Dao846.san(ord)

Case 2:22-cv-00846-TLN-CSK Document 66 Filed 12/13/23 Page 7 of 7