Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00757/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00757-4/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 

ROBERT H. FISHER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

EDWARD BONNER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-0757-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Easterling has moved to compel plaintiff’s deposition, arguing that 

a court order was necessary in light of plaintiff’s failure to appear for a duly-noticed deposition 

on June 15, 2016. ECF No. 35. Easterling also requests monetary sanctions and requests 

modification of the scheduling order to complete the deposition. Id. His motion is granted. 

If a party refuses to answer questions propounded at a deposition under Rule 30, the 

discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(i). 

The court “must require the party failing to act . . . to pay the reasonable expenses, including 

attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other 

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3). In responding to 

defendant’s motion, plaintiff explains that he failed to appear for the deposition because his 

mother had recently “lost . . . her battle with cancer,” he “was extremely grief stricken” and was 

Case 2:14-cv-00757-KJM-EFB Document 40 Filed 08/24/16 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 

2

“forced out of [his] place of residence.”1 ECF No. 38 at 1. Despite these hardships, plaintiff does 

not explain why he did not notify defense counsel and request an alternate date in order to avoid 

the costs occasioned by his failure to appear for the deposition and the resulting motion to 

compel. Accordingly, defendant’s request to recover of the hard costs of the court reporter and 

videographer retained for the deposition, totaling $345, is granted. See ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 5. Lastly, 

because the deadline for completion of discovery expired on August 19, 2016, the court must 

modify the discovery and scheduling order so that plaintiff’s deposition can be taken. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff’s deposition (ECF No. 35) is granted. 

2. Discovery is reopened for the limited purpose of allowing defendant to take the 

deposition of plaintiff. The deadline for completing this additional discovery is 

October 25, 2016. 

3. The deadline for filing dispositive motions is continued to November 28, 2016. 

4. Plaintiff shall pay defendant $345 in sanctions within thirty days of the date of this 

order. 

5. Plaintiff’s request for an enlargement of time (ECF No. 39) is denied without 

prejudice. 

DATED: August 24, 2016. 

 

 1

 Plaintiff also filed a request for an “enlargement of time,” ECF No. 39, but because there 

is no court deadline to extend, the motion is denied without prejudice. 

Case 2:14-cv-00757-KJM-EFB Document 40 Filed 08/24/16 Page 2 of 2