Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00568/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00568-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

3:15-cv-00568-LAB-NLS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CECILIA PEDROZA OCHOA, 

individual and as Surviving Spouse of 

Daniel Pedroza deceased, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF OCEANSIDE, 

a California municipal corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-00568-LAB-NLS

ORDER DETERMINING 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE NO.1

(Dkt. No. 68)

Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for determination of discovery dispute 

no. 1. The parties request determination on two issues: (1) whether to provide a limited 

extension of the expert disclosures deadline for only mental or emotional health experts; 

and (2) whether Defendants should be able to recover their costs and fees from Plaintiffs 

associated with a witness’s non-appearance at a deposition. For the reasons explained 

below, the Court GRANTS the request to extend the expert disclosures deadline for only 

mental or emotional health experts, and GRANTS Defendants’ request for 

reimbursement of expenses related to the non-appearance at the deposition.

Case 3:15-cv-00568-LAB-NLS Document 69 Filed 09/27/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

3:15-cv-00568-LAB-NLS

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

I. Expert Disclosures Deadline

Defense counsel represents that when she met and conferred with Plaintiffs’ 

counsel, she asked whether Plaintiffs would stipulate to extend the expert disclosures 

deadline, for mental/emotional health experts only, from October 7, 2016 to November 

16, 2016. Defendants seek this extension because their mental health expert is 

undergoing spinal surgery and will not be recovered enough to produce his expert report 

until at least mid-November. (Decl. of Deborah Nash, Dkt. No. 68-1 at ¶ 3.) Defendant 

states the requested extension will not affect any other current deadlines set in the 

scheduling order. (Dkt. No. 68 at 3.) Defendants aver Plaintiffs refused the request, thus 

necessitating this discovery motion.

Plaintiffs respond in their portion of the joint motion that Plaintiffs are willing to 

agree to a limited extension of the expert exchange deadline to November 16, 2016.1 

(Dkt. No. 68 at 6.) As such, it appears this issue is no longer in dispute. Having 

reviewed the papers submitted and for good cause shown, the Court will grant this

request. 

II. Reimbursement for Expenses Incurred for Non-Appearance at Deposition

Defendants assert they served a deposition subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 45 to take the deposition of Ivonne Ortiz (“Ortiz”). (Dkt. No. 68-1 at ¶ 4.) 

Ortiz is not a party to this case. According to Plaintiffs, Ortiz was employed by 

Plaintiffs’ prior counsel, Lee Durst. (Dkt. No. 68 at 6.) Defendants stated Plaintiffs

describe Ortiz as their “case manager,” “paralegal,” and “investigator.” (Dkt. No. 68-1 at 

 

1 Plaintiffs’ counsel provided her portion of the briefing on this joint motion, but according to defense 

counsel, Plaintiffs’ counsel never responded to their repeated requests for confirmation to insert her 

electronic signature upon filing. (Dkt. No. 68-1 at ¶ 9.) Because the joint statement briefing has been 

on file for more than two weeks and the Court has not received any objections or requests to reject the 

filing from Plaintiffs, the Court concludes Plaintiffs have no objection to the content of the filing. See 

CM/ECF Policies and Procedures Manual, § 2.f.4 (“[E]xcept as otherwise ordered, parties will have one 

business day to file an Objection to Electronic Filing if they object to contents of the joint motion...”).

Case 3:15-cv-00568-LAB-NLS Document 69 Filed 09/27/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

3:15-cv-00568-LAB-NLS

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

¶ 4.) Defendants noticed Ortiz’s deposition because Plaintiffs’ counsel represented that 

Plaintiffs intended to call Ortiz as a trial witness. (Id.) 

Defendants assert they served Ortiz’s subpoena on Plaintiffs’ present attorney, Ms. 

Cohan, because Plaintiffs’ recent discovery responses stated that Ortiz should be 

contacted through Plaintiffs’ attorney. (Id. at 3.) It appears Defendants served the 

subpoena on or about July 11, 2016. (Dkt. No. 68-1 at ¶ 7.) Defendants scheduled 

Ortiz’s deposition to be held on July 26, 2016. Defendants aver that the night before the 

deposition, around 9:00 p.m. on July 25, 2016, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a letter via email 

objecting to the deposition and stating that Ortiz would not appear. (Id.) Defendants’ 

counsel did not read the letter until the next morning, and by then, the court reporter and 

videographer were already at the office. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Defendants now seek 

reimbursement from Plaintiffs for the expenses they incurred for the court reporter and 

videographer. (Id. at ¶ 7.) 

In Plaintiffs’ portion of the joint statement, Plaintiffs’ counsel contends she spoke 

with defense counsel on the phone earlier in the day on July 25, 2016, and so Defendants 

arguably had enough time to cancel the reporter and videographer. (Dkt. No. 68 at 6.) 

Defendants’ counsel responds, in her signed declaration, that Plaintiffs’ representations 

regarding their communications are not accurate because the only communication she 

received regarding Ortiz’s deposition was the email Plaintiffs’ counsel sent the night

before the scheduled deposition. (Dkt. No. 68-1 at ¶¶ 5, 5.b.)

Although Defendants assert Ortiz failed to comply with the subpoena (Dkt. No. 68 

at 5), they do not seek sanctions against Ortiz. They have not applied for an order to 

show cause why Ortiz should not be held in contempt for her failure to appear at a 

properly noticed deposition, and do not request that Ortiz pay the expenses. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 45(g); see also Schwarzer, Tashima, Wagstaff, Fed. Civ. Proc. Before Trial, § 11:1625 

et seq. (where a nonparty witness fails to appear in response to a subpoena, the only 

Case 3:15-cv-00568-LAB-NLS Document 69 Filed 09/27/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

3:15-cv-00568-LAB-NLS

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

sanction available is contempt). They also do not seek an order requiring Ortiz to appear 

for her deposition because following her non-appearance and per the parties’ stipulation, 

Ortiz signed a declaration that she will not testify as a witness at trial. (Dkt. No. 68-1 at ¶ 

4.)

Thus, this issue concerns whether sanctions may be imposed against Plaintiffs for 

their belated objection and notification that Ortiz will not be appearing for her deposition.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(2) provides that “The court may impose an 

appropriate sanction – 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2). Although Rule 30(d)(2) is commonly cited in 

support of sanctions for conduct that occurs during a deposition, courts in this Circuit 

have also relied on this provision to issue monetary sanctions for expenses incurred as a 

result of a non-appearance or untimely cancellation of a deposition. See generally, Adv. 

Comm. Notes to 1993 Amendm’t to former Rule 30(d)(3); see e.g., Zhi Yang Zhou v. 

David, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37622, *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2012) (imposing

monetary sanctions against the deponent’s counsel under Rule 30(d)(2) for his failure to 

appear at scheduled depositions, and requiring payment to defendants for defense 

counsel’s time, for the court reporter and interpreter expenses, and for counsel’s time 

incurred in bringing the motion for sanctions); see also e.g., BoomJ.com v. Pursglove, 

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39169, *5-6 (D. Nev. Apr. 1, 2011) (citing Rule 30 and ordering

plaintiff to pay reimbursement of reasonable costs, including court reporter and 

cancellation fees, related to the cancelled deposition of the plaintiff’s CEO and agent).

Here, the Court finds Defendants are entitled to reimbursement for the expenses 

associated with Ortiz’s deposition. Defendants contacted Ortiz through Plaintiffs’ 

attorney, as instructed. Plaintiffs, through their counsel, acknowledged receipt of the 

subpoena, and did not use appropriate methods to move to quash the subpoena or move 

Case 3:15-cv-00568-LAB-NLS Document 69 Filed 09/27/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

3:15-cv-00568-LAB-NLS

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

for a protective order. Although Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts she spoke with defense 

counsel over the phone the day before the deposition, the Court credits defense counsel’s 

declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, attesting that the only communication 

Defendants received was the email sent the night before the deposition. Plaintiffs’ 

objection and notification that Ortiz would not be appearing for her deposition thus did 

not give Defendants sufficient time to cancel the court reporter and videographer 

services. Plaintiffs, through their counsel’s actions, therefore impeded and frustrated 

Ortiz’s examination and caused Defendants to unnecessarily incur expenses. For these 

reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ request. 

III. Conclusion

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Court GRANTS the request for a limited extension of the expert 

disclosure deadline as to the mental or emotional health experts only. The 

expert disclosures deadline as to mental or emotional health experts only is 

extended to November 16, 2016. 

2. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ request for reimbursement of the expenses 

they incurred pertaining to Ortiz’s scheduled deposition examination. 

Plaintiffs shall pay to Defendants the amount of expenses they incurred on

July 26, 2016 for the court reporter and videographer. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-00568-LAB-NLS Document 69 Filed 09/27/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5