Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01004/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01004-16/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

RALPH DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-1004 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action 

for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds on claims arising under the 

Eighth Amendment against employees of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation at California State Prison, Sacramento. Defendants have filed a motion asking that

terminating sanctions issue, or that monetary sanctions issue with an order compelling plaintiff to 

submit to further deposition.

1

 All parties have consented to have all matters in this action before 

a United States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

/////

1

 The court notes that in defendants’ reply brief, defendants take issue with the fact that plaintiff 

never responded to certain written requests for discovery. Whether that is true is not relevant here 

as, except with the issues addressed herein concerning plaintiff’s deposition, discovery closed on 

March 22, 2024 (ECF No. 89) without defendants filing a motion to compel plaintiff to provide 

responses to written requests for discovery. 

Case 2:20-cv-01004-CKD Document 100 Filed 09/18/24 Page 1 of 5
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

I. Facts

The court issued its discovery and scheduling order on November 20, 2023. The parties 

were granted until March 22, 2024, to conduct discovery. Defendants noticed plaintiff’s 

deposition for December 21, 2023, at R.J. Donavan Correctional Facility where plaintiff is 

currently housed. ECF No. 91-1 at 8. The deposition commenced at 9:30 a.m. RT at 4. 

At about the two-hour mark, defense counsel questioned plaintiff as to a visit paid to 

plaintiff by defendant Nurse Balbasova while plaintiff was in a holding cell. RT at 68. 

According to plaintiff, Nurse Balbasova approached plaintiff, asked plaintiff his name and then 

told him “We’ll call you into the office and talk to you for a few minutes” at which point 

Balbasova went into the office after being summoned there by defendant Sgt. Fujiwara. Id. at 69-

70. After a few minutes, Balbasova left the office and walked out of the building. Id. at 71.

Essentially, it is plaintiff’s contention that Balbasova left the building without speaking to 

plaintiff further because she was intimidated by Fujiwara and others in the office. Id. Defense 

counsel questioned plaintiff as to how he knew what was said in the office to Balbasova and the 

following eventually ensued:

A. Hey, you know what, I will tell you "Fuck you" and get up and 

walk out of this mother fuckin' room.

MR. CATRINA: No. Let's take a break right now.

THE WITNESS: No, we're done.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the record. The time is 

11:27 a.m.

RT at 72. 

At 11:39 a.m. the court reporter and counsel for defendants indicated that the deposition 

would not continue. Counsel for defendants indicated plaintiff was offered a 10-minute break or 

longer, but plaintiff refused to continue. RT at 72-73. 

Later that day, counsel for defendants sent an email to the litigation coordinator at R.J. 

Donavan asking that he facilitate a phone call between counsel and plaintiff so that they could 

meet and confer as to what had occurred at the deposition. Apparently, the call to was to occur on 

December 28, 2024, but plaintiff ultimately refused to appear for the call. ECF No. 91-3. 

Case 2:20-cv-01004-CKD Document 100 Filed 09/18/24 Page 2 of 5
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

In his opposition to defendants’ motion (ECF No. 94), plaintiff offers several excuses for 

his conduct. The court identifies and address those which at least possibly and partially excuse 

plaintiff’s conduct. 

Plaintiff indicates that at the beginning of the deposition, plaintiff told defense counsel 

that he was in severe pain and could not sit for long periods of time. That is not reflected in the 

transcript of the deposition. Plaintiff indicated he was in “a little pain,” but could proceed. RT at 

9-10. Plaintiff asserts that immediately after the deposition, plaintiff went to the medical clinic 

for spinal pain and was sent to an outside hospital where plaintiff stayed until December 26, 

2024. Other than his declaration, plaintiff does not point to any evidence in support of this. 

Plaintiff does not deny that he was informed on December 28, 2024, or before, about the meet 

and confer phone call and that he refused to appear for the call. 

II. Defendants’ Argument

A. Terminating Sanctions

A terminating sanction is “very severe.” Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of 

Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007). In order to determine whether a case should 

be dismissed for noncompliance with discovery, the court considers the following:

1. The public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 

2. The court's need to manage its docket;

3. The risk of prejudice to defendants;

4. The public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and

5. The availability of less drastic alternatives.

Computer Task Group, Inc v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2004).

With respect to the first factor, plaintiff’s actions have delayed this case, thwarting the 

public’s interest in expeditious resolution. However, the court cannot find public interest has 

been materially undermined or that it will be if this case is permitted to continue. Similarly, while 

the court has had to expend more resources than necessary to address plaintiff’s wrongful 

conduct, the court’s ability to manage its docket has not been significantly harmed. 

Further, nothing suggests defendants have suffered any prejudice to their case at this 

Case 2:20-cv-01004-CKD Document 100 Filed 09/18/24 Page 3 of 5
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

point. It is still possible for defendants to depose plaintiff further and the policy favoring 

disposition of the cases on their merits weighs against dismissal.

Finally, the court finds that the combination of a warning and an order that defendants be 

permitted to depose plaintiff a second time is an acceptable alternative to dismissal at this point. 

It is of some import that defendants filed a motion for terminating sanctions rather than filing a 

motion to compel plaintiff to finish his deposition. That being the case, the court has not had an 

opportunity to provide plaintiff with a direct warning that his conduct at his deposition was 

wrongful, and that similar conduct will result in an end to these proceedings. 

For these reasons, terminating sanctions are not appropriate. 

B. Monetary Sanctions

As an alternative to dismissal, defendants ask that the court sanction plaintiff $150.00, the 

amount that defendants will have to spend in service fees payable to a court reporting service for 

a second deposition pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this action. A review of the trust account 

statement (ECF No. 5) filed with plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis indicates 

that as of 2020, plaintiff owed almost approximately $9,000 in restitution and over $1,000 for 

court filing fees, copies, and postage. At that time, plaintiff had about $100 in his trust account. 

Nothing in the record suggests plaintiff has the ability to pay any award of sanctions.

Because plaintiff has no ability to pay sanctions an award of sanctions appears futile. 

Therefore, the court will deny defendants’ request for sanctions in the amount of $150.00. See

Sanchez v. Rodriguez, 298 F.R.D. 460, 466 (C.D. Cal. March 14, 2014).

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions or monetary sanctions plus an order 

compelling plaintiff to submit to further deposition (ECF No. 91) is granted in part and denied in 

part.

2. Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions is denied.

3. Defendants’ motion for monetary sanctions is denied. 

4. Defendants’ motion for an order that plaintiff be compelled to submit to further 

Case 2:20-cv-01004-CKD Document 100 Filed 09/18/24 Page 4 of 5
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

5

deposition is granted. Defendants are granted 30 days to serve a notice of deposition to plaintiff. 

The deposition must occur within 60 days. Any motion to compel concerning the deposition 

must be filed within 90 days. In all other respects, discovery is closed. After the issues 

concerning plaintiff’s deposition are fully resolved, the court will reset the deadline for the filing 

of pretrial motions.

5. Plaintiff is hereby warned that any further willful violations of law, including rules 

pertaining to depositions, or any order of this court could be met with terminating sanctions. 

Dated: September 17, 2024

1

smit1004.41(b)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-01004-CKD Document 100 Filed 09/18/24 Page 5 of 5