Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05108/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05108-3/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE DIAZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O VIGIL,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-5108-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE

(Doc. 57) 

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO RENOTICE DEPOSITION, AND EXTENDING

DISCOVERY AND MOTION DEADLINES TO

ACCOMMODATE PLAINTIFF’S

DEPOSITION

Discovery Deadline: 05/26/06

Dispositive Motion Deadline: 07/26/06

Plaintiff Jose Diaz (“plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 30, 2005, plaintiff was

ordered to show cause, in writing, why sanctions should not be imposed against him for failing to

appear at his deposition on February 11, 2005. Plaintiff responded to the order on August 16, 2005,

and defendant Vigil (“defendant”) filed a reply on September 13, 2005. 

The only relevant justification set forth by plaintiff is that he did not receive the notice. As

previouslystated by the Court, defendant’s alleged failure to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests

does not allow plaintiff to elect to skip his deposition, and no such discovery dispute has been raised

with the Court. Thus, that issue, as set forth by plaintiff in his response, is irrelevant to the

resolution of plaintiff’s failure to appear at his deposition.

///

Case 1:03-cv-05108-OWW -LJO Document 62 Filed 03/27/06 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

Defendant requests dismissal of this case as a sanction, and asserts that the notice was served

on plaintiff at his address of record and was not returned by as undeliverable. However, “[w]here

the drastic sanctions of dismissal or default are imposed . . . the losing party’s non-compliance must

be due to willfulness, fault or bad faith.” Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 946 (9th Cir.

1993); Fjelstad v. American Honda Motor Co., 762 F.2d 1334, 1337 (9th Cir. 1985).

“‘[D]isobedient conduct not shown to be outside the control of the litigant’ is all that is required to

demonstrate willfulness, bad faith, or fault.” Henry, 983 F.2d at 948 (quoting Fjelstad, 762 F.2d at

1341).

Based on plaintiff’s averment, under penalty of perjury, that he did not receive the deposition

notice, the Court cannot make the requisite finding of willfulness, fault, or bad faith on the record

before it. Defendant shall re-notice plaintiff’s deposition and provide reasonable notice, taking into

account plaintiff’s residence in Mexico. Plaintiff is admonished that although he is residing in

Mexico and may be unable to enter the United States, he filed this action and is responsible for

prosecuting it. Defendant has the right to take plaintiff’s deposition in this action, and Plaintiff is

warned that if he fails to appear for his deposition, absent the filing of some other recognized

response to the notice, this action will be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (d). The Court will extend

the discovery deadline to May 26, 2006, in order to accommodate plaintiff’s deposition. The pretrial dispositive motion deadline will be extended to July 26, 2006, which should give defendant

sufficient time to take the appropriate course of action if plaintiff does not appear at his deposition,

without defendant having to unnecessarily expend resources on drafting a motion for summary

judgment. 

Finally, English is plaintiff’s second language, and plaintiff has asserted that he does not read,

write, or comprehend English very well. Pursuant to defendant’s request, plaintiff is required to

notify defendant within thirty days from the date of service of this order whether or not he needs a

Spanish-English interpreter. Plaintiff is warned that the failure to notify defendant whether or not

he needs an interpreter within thirty days will result in dismissal of this action.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The order to show cause, filed June 30, 2005, is DISCHARGED;

Case 1:03-cv-05108-OWW -LJO Document 62 Filed 03/27/06 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. Defendant shall re-notice plaintiff’s deposition;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall notify

defendant’s counsel whether or not plaintiff needs a Spanish-English interpreter;

4. The discovery deadline is extended to May 26, 2006, for the limited purpose of

conducting plaintiff’s deposition;

5. The pre-trial dispositive motion deadline is extended to July 26, 2006; and

6. Plaintiff’s failure to (1) notify defendant within thirty days whether he needs a

Spanish-English interpreter or (2) appear at his deposition, or otherwise respond

appropriately to the deposition notice, will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05108-OWW -LJO Document 62 Filed 03/27/06 Page 3 of 3