Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00843/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00843-20/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

DAMEN D. RABB,

Plaintiff,

v.

ESTEVEN FIGUEROA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB (PC)

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINITFF’S 

OBJECTION TO THE TAKING OF HIS 

DEPOSITION

(ECF No. 71)

Plaintiff is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion objecting to the taking of his deposition, 

filed July 31, 2024.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Federal Rule”) 30 allows a party, “by oral questions, 

[to] depose any person, including a party[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1). When the deponent is 

confined to prison, the deposing “party must obtain leave of court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2). 

Federal Rule 30 allows for objections to the deposition—“whether to evidence, to a party’s 

conduct, to the officer’s qualifications, to the manner of taking the deposition, or to any other 

aspect of the deposition—must be noted on the record, but the examination still proceeds; the 

testimony is taken subject to any objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 (c)(2). The only authorized 

exceptions for a deponent to not answer a question are “when necessary to preserve a privilege, to 

enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3).” (Id.) 

Federal Rule 30(d)(3) provides: “At any time during a deposition, the deponent or a party may 

move to terminate or limit it on the ground that it is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner 

that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party.”

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 72 Filed 08/05/24 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

Federal Rule 37 authorizes a district court, in its discretion, to impose a wide range of 

sanctions when a party fails to comply with the rules of discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). If a 

party fails to appear for a deposition, the district court may impose such sanctions as it deems 

appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A)(i). 

The scheduling order in this case gave leave to depose Plaintiff, ECF No. 28 at 2, and 

Plaintiff indicates that he was provided notice on July 24, 2204. Plaintiff's argument that he may 

refuse to participate because has not been provided a copy the video and audio footage is without 

merit. (ECF No. 71.) Plaintiff’s objection does not relieve him of his obligation to attend and 

participate in the taking of his deposition. 

The only time a deponent can refuse to answer a question in a deposition is “when 

necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court,” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 

30(c)(2)) or because the deposition is “being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that 

unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

30(d)(3)(A). Plaintiff’s objections do not demonstrate that Defendants acted in bad faith, or that 

by requesting to take his deposition, Defendants sought to embarrass or oppress him. Nor does the 

Court find that to be the case. Indeed, Plaintiff does not provide specific details on what harm he 

will experience in proceeding with the deposition without review of the audio and video footage. 

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff cannot refuse to appear for his deposition 

based on his objections. Instead, Plaintiff is required to note his objections on the record, but 

proceed with the deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2). Plaintiff’s failure to attend and 

participate in his video deposition may result in the imposition of sanctions, including 

dismissal of the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 72 Filed 08/05/24 Page 2 of 2