Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02799/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02799-13/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANNY JAMES COHEA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-00-2799 FCD EFB P

vs.

CHERYL K. PLILER, Warden,

et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On November 8, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Local

Rules 11-110, 39-141, and 37-251(d) and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “regarding

stipulation of deposition transcripts.”

Plaintiff claims that on July 19, 2006, plaintiff received an empty envelope, mailed to

him from defense counsel, which should have contained a “Notice of Taking Deposition by

Videoconference.” Approximately nine days later, on July 28, 2006, defense counsel arrived at

Calipatria State Prison, where plaintiff is housed, in order to depose plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed

that he was not served with notice of the deposition and was unprepared. The parties stipulated

on the record to an extension of time to complete plaintiff’s deposition, of no later than 90 days

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 143 Filed 07/05/07 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

2

beyond the August 11, 2006, discovery cut-off. On August 9, 2006, defendants filed a request

for an extension of time for this purpose, informing the court that defendants had given proper

notice of deposition, then as before, scheduled for September 20, 2006, in order to provide

plaintiff with adequate time to prepare. By order filed August 18, 2006, the court granted

defendants’ request. 

In his motion for sanctions, plaintiff claims that defense counsel mailed an empty

envelope as a ploy to deprive plaintiff of notice of the deposition scheduled for July 28, 2006, 

and either compel plaintiff to proceed unprepared or agree to a 90-day extension beyond the

discovery cut-off date. Plaintiff also claims that defendants are in violation of the rules for not

having served him with a copy of his deposition transcript.

Defendants filed a response in opposition to plaintiff’s motion on November 21, 2006,

stating that “the United States Postal Service recently discovered that their automated equipment

had caused the aforementioned deposition notice to become separated from the envelope and not

delivered.” Defendants attached the notice as an exhibit to their response, together with the

letter from the postal service. Defendants maintain that the July 20, 2006, deposition date was

continued to September 20, 2006, in order to accommodate plaintiff’s concerns of insufficient

notice and the need to review his legal documents. Defendants also state that plaintiff’s claims

regarding service of a copy of his deposition transcript are mistaken, as plaintiff was afforded an

opportunity to review the transcript in order to make corrections, and further, inmates are not

permitted to keep copies of deposition transcripts unless they pay for them. 

Based on this evidence the court finds that defendants did not engage in conduct

warranting sanctions or discipline and instead have acted in good faith to compensate for an

unpredictable mishap on part of the United States Postal Service. 

////

////

////

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 143 Filed 07/05/07 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

3

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 8, 2006, motion for sanctions is

denied. 

Dated: July 5, 2007.

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 143 Filed 07/05/07 Page 3 of 3