Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-03409/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-03409-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sasha Douglas Irwin,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Tanner Davison, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-03409-PHX-SRB (DMF)

ORDER 

Defendant filed a Motion for Sanctions after Plaintiff refused to answer questions 

at two noticed depositions. The sanctions sought are the costs associated with having the 

court reporter present for the depositions. The Magistrate Judge issued her Report and 

Recommendation on January 2, 2020 recommending that the motion be granted and 

sanctions in the amount of $314.60 be imposed to reimburse Defendant for the court 

reporter costs. Plaintiff has filed a timely objection to which the Defendant has responded.

Plaintiff offers two objections. He first claims he was entitled to a ten day notice 

before the date of his deposition citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1). This rule does not require 

a ten day notice. It requires reasonable notice. Plaintiff’s deposition was first noticed on 

July 22, 2019 for July 25, 2019.. It could not proceed that day because Plaintiff was in 

state court. His deposition was re-noticed on July 31. 2019 for August 7, 2019 and renoticed again for September 18, 2019. Plaintiff had notice since July 22, 2019 that 

Defendant intended to depose him. Moreover, Plaintiff’s refusal to answer questions on 

August 7, 2019 was not based on lack of reasonable notice nor did he argue that in his 

Case 2:18-cv-03409-SRB-DMF Document 52 Filed 02/06/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

response to the sanctions motion. Plaintiff’s refusal to submit to deposition on August 7, 

2019 was recorded by the court reporter. Plaintiff refused to answer any questions because 

of his intention to file a second amended complaint. 

At his deposition scheduled for September 18, 2019, Plaintiff’s reasons for refusing 

to answer any questions were again recorded. He made no claim of lack of notice. Instead,

he said he would not answer any questions until he had consulted with his criminal attorney 

and with “civil attorneys”. Plaintiff did assert the short notice in his response to the Motion 

for Sanctions arguing that he needed to talk to his criminal attorney before answering 

deposition questions. But Plaintiff never explains why he had not had that discussion with 

his criminal attorney between July 22 and September 18, 2019. 

Plaintiff’s objection based on untimely notice is overruled.

Plaintiff’s second objection is that he had a legal right to refuse to submit to 

deposition on August 7, 2019 because of his intention to file a second amended complaint 

and on September 18, 2019 because he had a constitutional right to not incriminate himself 

and therefore the right to consult his criminal attorney before answering any questions. 

As explained by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s intention to file a second amended 

complaint provides no legal right to refuse to submit to deposition. Plaintiff also had no 

legal right to refuse to submit to deposition on September 18, 2019 when he had had over 

a year to consult with counsel, was aware of the discovery deadlines and never sought a 

protective order from the Court. Plaintiff’s second objection is overruled.

Having reviewed the record de novo, the Court finds itself in agreement with the 

Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS ORDERED overruling Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and 

Recommendation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court. (Doc. 41)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions. (Doc. 27)

. . . 

Case 2:18-cv-03409-SRB-DMF Document 52 Filed 02/06/20 Page 2 of 3
- 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

27

28

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall reimburse Defendant $314.60 for 

the court reporter costs associated with Plaintiff’s deposition settings of August 7, 2019 

and September 18, 2019.

Dated this 6th day of February, 2020.

Case 2:18-cv-03409-SRB-DMF Document 52 Filed 02/06/20 Page 3 of 3