Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00973/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00973-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDON MEEKS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv973-GPC(BGS)

ORDER SUMMARILY DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR AN

ORDER IMPOSING

TERMINATING SANCTIONS

AGAINST PLAINTIFF 

vs.

A. NUNEZ, et al.,

Defendant.

On May 16, 2016, Defendants A. Nunez and T. Scott filed a motion for an order

1

imposing terminating sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order

filed on May 4, 2016 compelling Plaintiff to appear for his deposition on May 9, 2016. 

(Dkt. No. 149.) Based on the reasoning below, the Court summarily DENIES

Defendants’ motion for an order imposing termination sanctions.

2

Background

On May 4, 2016, the Court issued an order overruling Plaintiff’s objections to

the Magistrate’s ruling on Defendants’ ex parte motion to compel, denying Defendants’

The Court notes that Defendants failed to obtain a hearing date on their motion 1

as required under the Civil Local Rules. 

The Court summarily deniesthe motion due to efficiency and because denial is 2

clearly warranted in this case. This case is over three years old, and letting the motion

proceed through the report and recommendation process or through a motion briefing

schedule with the undersigned judge will unnecessarily delay this case for several

months. 

- 1 - [13cv973-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 151 Filed 05/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
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

motion for terminating sanctions and ordered that Plaintiff attend his deposition. (Dkt.

No. 145.) On May 5, 2016, Defendants contacted the Corcoran prison litigation office

to schedule a date for Plaintiff’s deposition and was advised that May 9, 2016 was

available and then the next available date was not until after May 23, 2016. (Dkt. No. 3

149-3, Soto-Vancil Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3.) On May 5, 2016, Defendants served via overnight

delivery on Plaintiff a Notice of Deposition for his deposition to be taken on May 9,

2016. (Dkt. No. 149-2, Pattison Decl. ¶ 8.) On May 5, 2016, after talking with the

litigation coordinator on how best to get a copy of the Notice of Deposition as soon as

possible, the litigation coordinator advised that if she faxed a copy of the Notice of

Deposition, he would make sure that Plaintiff received a copy. (Dkt. No. 149-3, SotoVancil Decl. ¶ 4.) On the morning of May 6, 2016, the litigation coordinator left a

voicemail message confirming that the copy of the Notice of Deposition was delivered

to Plaintiff. (Id.) That same morning, Defendants contacted the litigation coordinator

to request that he deliver a copy of the Court’s order to Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 5.) The Court’s

order was emailed to the litigation coordinator and he later confirmed that Plaintiff had

received a copy of the Court’s order that morning. (Id.; Ex. B.) On May 9, 2016, at

9:15 a.m., Defendants received a call from the litigation coordinator advising that

Plaintiff had stated he was refusing to attend his deposition and did not provide a

reason. (Id. ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 149-2, Pattison Decl. ¶ 11.) Defense counsel incurred

attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $1,408.61. (Id. ¶ 14.)

“A party who wants to depose a person by oral questions must give reasonable

written notice to every other party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1). Courts construe

“reasonable notice” to be five days, if the deposition notice does not require production

of documents at the deposition. Guzman v. Bridgepoint Educ., Inc., Civil No. 11cv69-

WHQ(WVG), 2014 WL 1670094, at 2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2014); see also Pac. Mar.

Freight, Inc. v. Foster, No. 10cv578-BTM(BLM), 2013 WL 6118410 at *2 n.2 (S.D.

If Defendants had concerns regarding the deadline, May 24, 2016, for deposing 3

Plaintiff, they could have sought relief from the Magistrate Judge. 

- 2 - [13cv973-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 151 Filed 05/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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

Cal. 2013) (at least five days notice is sufficient for a party’s deposition); Jones v.

United States, 720 F. Supp. 355, 366 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (holding that eight days' notice

was reasonable)). One court found that one-day notice was reasonable because the

parties were on an expedited discovery schedule, the need for a deposition arose

suddenly and unexpectedly, and deposition was brief and conducted over the

telephone. Natural Organics v. Proteins Plus, Inc., 724 F. Supp. 50, 52 n. 3 (E.D. N.Y.

1989). The unique facts in Natural Organics mandated a one-day notice and is not the

norm. See Al-Kidd v. Gonzales, No. CV 05-93-S-EJL-MHW, 2008 WL 2788418, at

*5 (D. Idaho July 17, 2008) (“notice of deposition here was given to the Federal

Defendants after normal business hours on a Friday, five days before the deposition

wasto be taken” wasfound to be unreasonable); Memorial Hospice, Inc. v. Norris, No.

08cv48-B-A, 2008 WL 4844758, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Nov. 5, 2008) (finding that three

days notice was unreasonable). 

Here, Defendants provided Plaintiff with only two days notice of his deposition. 

Moreover, those two days consisted of a weekend. As the cases above demonstrate,

two days notice is clearly unreasonable under Rule 30(b)(1). Furthermore, the

unreasonableness is exacerbated because Plaintiff had not yet received the Court’s

order from the Clerk of Court. Even though Defendants provided Plaintiff with a

4

copy of the Court’s order on Friday, two days is not sufficient time for a pro se Plaintiff

to review and digest the Court’s ruling and prepare for his deposition. In addition,

Defendants, as Correctional Officers, should appreciate the additional time needed for

Plaintiff, as a prisoner, to receive mail. Therefore, Defendants have unnecessarily

incurred attorney’s fees and costs. 

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court summarily DENIES Defendants’ motion for an order

imposing terminating sanctions. The Court DIRECTS Defendants to wait until

The Court’s order was mailed out on Wednesday, May 4, 2016. It is highly 4

unlikely that Plaintiff, incarcerated at Corcoran, received his legal mail by the morning

of Monday, May 9, 2016. 

- 3 - [13cv973-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 151 Filed 05/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
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

sufficient time has passed to allow Plaintiff to receive the instant Court order prior to

noticing another deposition. As the Court stated in its prior order, 

Plaintiff shall comply with the deposition notice and if there are

objections, he shall state the objections on the record. If Plaintiff fails

to comply, Defendants may refile a motion for order imposing

termination sanctions and Plaintiff’s first amended complaint may be

subject to dismissal.

(Dkt. No. 145 at 7.) Once reasonable notice of his deposition is provided to Plaintiff

and he fails to comply, Defendants may refile a motion for order imposing termination

sanctions and Plaintiff’s first amended complaint may be subject to dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 19, 2016

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 4 - [13cv973-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 151 Filed 05/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4