Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00369/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00369-14/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

RAYMOND MCCOWAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. MCKEOWN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-00369-DAD-CKD P

ORDER

 

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

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the court are plaintiff’s 

motion for sanctions as well as a motion to quash his deposition. ECF Nos. 57, 60. Defendants 

have filed an opposition to each motion. ECF Nos. 58, 61. For the reasons explained below, the 

court denies plaintiff’s motions. 

I. Procedural History

This case is proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint alleging the use of 

excessive force by defendants McKeown and Stephens-Merrell and deliberate indifference by 

defendants McAllister, Ota, and Harris, all in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See ECF No. 

40 (Order adopting Findings and Recommendations). Following two unsuccessful settlement 

conferences, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on September 11, 2023. See

ECF Nos. 49, 52, 56. The discovery cut-off in this case was January 16, 2024, and the dispositive 

Case 2:21-cv-00369-DAD-CKD Document 64 Filed 04/24/24 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

motions deadline was extended to June 14, 2024. ECF Nos. 56, 63. 

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure based 

on the destruction of evidence in his central prison file by staff at California State Prison-Los 

Angeles County who are not defendants in this case. ECF No. 57 at 5. The motion is also based 

on a breach of plaintiff’s confidential legal call during the initial settlement conference on June 

28, 2023.

In opposition to this motion, defendants indicate that the initial settlement conference was 

continued to a different date after plaintiff informed the magistrate judge of his privacy concerns. 

ECF No. 58. The subsequent settlement conference was conducted in a different location in the 

prison in which plaintiff did not indicate any concerns with his privacy. Therefore, “nothing 

Plaintiff claims about his privacy rights being violated is relevant, material, or a basis for 

sanctions.” ECF No. 58 at 2. Moreover, Rule 37 provides a basis for sanctions based on 

disclosures and discovery violations and not settlement conference proceedings. Therefore, 

defendants assert that the motion is procedurally improper. Regarding the documents in 

plaintiff’s central file, defendants point out that plaintiff never mentions what specific records are 

missing or how they are relevant to the present lawsuit. Additionally, neither defendants nor 

defense counsel should be sanctioned because they were not involved in plaintiff’s review of his 

central prison file at CSP-LAC. 

III. Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Deposition

On December 8, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion to quash his deposition by defendants in 

this case because the court had not yet ruled on his motion for sanctions. ECF No. 60. This 

motion also refers to evidence missing from plaintiff’s central prison file, without identifying 

what this evidence is. Plaintiff indicates that he would be at a disadvantage during his deposition 

without this evidence. 

Defendants filed an opposition to this motion indicating that “Plaintiff’s two-paragraph 

motion to quash presents no supporting authority, no explanation of how Plaintiff being 

‘disadvantaged’ is a basis to quash his deposition, and no argument whatsoever.” ECF No. 61 at 

Case 2:21-cv-00369-DAD-CKD Document 64 Filed 04/24/24 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

2. 

In a subsequently filed motion for an extension of time to file dispositive motions, 

defendants indicate that plaintiff was deposed on January 12, 2024. ECF No. 62 at 4. 

IV. Analysis

The court denies plaintiff’s motion for sanctions as there is no factual or legal basis 

justifying sanctions in this case. To the extent that the motion is based on plaintiff’s privacy 

concerns during the initial settlement conference, the court did not proceed to discuss the case. 

ECF No. 49. It allowed plaintiff to reschedule the settlement conference to accommodate his 

privacy concerns. ECF No. 49. The purported missing documents from plaintiff’s central file did 

not involve the defendants in this case, who are employed at the California Medical Facility. 

Plaintiff does not provide any evidence that defendants were involved, only his rank speculation. 

Moreover, as defendants point out, Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not 

provide a basis to impose sanctions for conduct occurring during a settlement conference. 

Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is procedurally improper. For all these reasons, the 

motion is denied. 

In light of the denial of the motion for sanctions, plaintiff’s motion to quash his deposition 

is also denied. Additionally, the court notes that the motion to quash was mooted by plaintiff’s 

decision to participate in his own deposition on January 12, 2024. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 57) is denied as factually and legally 

unsupported.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to quash his deposition (ECF No. 60) is denied.

Dated: April 24, 2024

12/mcco0369.m2quash+sanctions

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-00369-DAD-CKD Document 64 Filed 04/24/24 Page 3 of 3