Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05028/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05028-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Plaintiff is no longer in custody.

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ANTOINETTE IREAU MAREZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF

DEPUTY CHILTON,

Defendant. /

No. C06-05028 RMW (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR

SANCTIONS

[Re: Docket No. 20]

This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Antoinette

Marez, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, alleges that, while she was

incarcerated,1 defendant physically assaulted her as she was being transferred from one holding

cell to another.

Defendant Sheriff Deputy Chilton now moves to compel plaintiff to appear for her

deposition. He also seeks monetary sanctions for her failure to appear at her deposition which

was set for August 24, 2007. Although it appears that defendant’s motion papers were duly

served by mail on plaintiff, she filed no opposition papers and did not appear at the motion

hearing. Upon consideration of the papers submitted, as well as the arguments presented at the

October 9, 2007 motion hearing, this court grants the motion in part and denies the motion in

part.

*E-FILED: 10/9/2007*

Case 5:06-cv-05028-RMW Document 26 Filed 10/09/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Under Rule 37(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if a party fails to appear at her

deposition, the court may impose any of the sanctions authorized under Fed.R.Civ.P.

37(b)(2)(A), (B) and (C). In lieu of, or in addition to, those sanctions, the court shall require the

party failing to appear to pay the reasonable expenses (including attorney’s fees) caused by the

failure, unless it concludes that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances

make an award of expenses unjust. FED.R.CIV.P. 37(d). Sanctions for failure to appear at a

deposition may be imposed even absent a prior court order. See Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983

F.2d 943, 947 (9th Cir. 1993) (repeated cancellations at the last minute constitute a failure to

appear). Moreover, there is no need to find that the failure to attend was “willful.” See Lew v.

Kona Hospital, 754 F.2d 1420, 1427 (9th Cir. 1985) (“Even a negligent failure to allow

reasonable discovery may be punished.”).

In this case, the record before the court shows that defendant noticed plaintiff’s

deposition for July 30, 2004. However, less than half an hour before her deposition was to

begin, Marez left a voicemail for defense counsel advising that she would not attend. The

parties subsequently agreed that plaintiff’s deposition would proceed on August 24, 2007 at

1:00 p.m. – a date and time chosen by plaintiff. On August 23, 2007, plaintiff confirmed that

she would appear for her deposition the next day as agreed. Nevertheless, for reasons unknown,

she failed to appear; and, when defense counsel phoned her at home and on her cell phone, there

was no answer.

Nothing in the record suggests that plaintiff’s failure to appear was justified. Moreover,

although defendant’s motion for sanctions was not separately filed in accordance with Civil

Local Rules 7-8 and 37-3, the court finds that defendant’s request for reimbursement of $230.00

in court reporter fees incurred on August 24, 2007 is a reasonable one. The court nevertheless

concludes that the imposition of monetary sanctions would be unjust. There is no rule

prohibiting the imposition of monetary sanctions against an impecunious party. See Bosworth

v. Record Data of Maryland, Inc., 102 F.R.D. 518, 521 (D. Md. 1984) (“A flat per se policy

against the imposition of sanctions under Federal Civil [Procedure] Rule 37 upon any party who

is financially indigent does not accord with the purposes of that rule and would open the door to

Case 5:06-cv-05028-RMW Document 26 Filed 10/09/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

many possible abuses.”). Here, however, plaintiff’s August 21, 2006 Application to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis suggests that she is not able to pay sanctions in any amount.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT defendant’s motion is GRANTED IN PART

AND DENIED IN PART. Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to appear for her deposition

is granted. Plaintiff shall appear for a deposition within the next ten calendar days on a date and

time agreed to by the parties – or failing agreement, on a date and time picked by defendant. 

Defendant’s motion for monetary sanctions is denied.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

October 9, 2007

Case 5:06-cv-05028-RMW Document 26 Filed 10/09/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

Notice will be electronically mailed to:

Mark F. Bernal mark.bernal@cco.sccgov.org 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have

not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Notice mailed to:

Antoinette I. Marez 

841 Prevost Street 

San Jose, CA 95125

Pro Se Plaintiff

Case 5:06-cv-05028-RMW Document 26 Filed 10/09/07 Page 4 of 4