Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02166/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02166-5/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Timothy Bryan Brooks,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 02-2166 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

California Department of

Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner without counsel prosecuting this

civil rights action. Defendants move to compel plaintiff’s

appearance for deposition and for monetary sanctions upon the

ground plaintiff failed to appear for a properly noticed

deposition.

Defendants duly noticed plaintiff’s deposition for August

22, 2005. August 17, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for an order

preventing defendants from taking his deposition. A scheduling

conflict arose and so defendants cancelled the deposition. 

Case 2:02-cv-02166-MCE -EFB Document 63 Filed 01/25/06 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

Defendants’ counsel sent to plaintiff a letter explaining

defendants had a right under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

to take his deposition and enclosed a copy of the court’s April

13, 2005, discovery order. 

August 23, 2005, defendants duly noticed plaintiff’s

deposition for September 9, 2005, at California Correctional

Center--Susanville. August 26, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion

for an order preventing defendants from taking his deposition. 

Counsel spoke with plaintiff over the telephone and plaintiff

agreed to appear but after reviewing the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, plaintiff persisted in his belief defendants were not

permitted to take his deposition without leave of court and so

did not appear at the appointed time.

Defendants seek an order compelling plaintiff to appear for

a duly noticed deposition and to pay attorney’s and court

reporter’s fees in the amount of $486.50.

In pertinent part, Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 provides:

Rule 30. Depositions upon Oral Examination

(a) When Depositions May be Taken; When Leave

Required.

 (1) A party may take the testimony of any

person, including a party, by deposition upon

oral examination without leave of court

except as provided in paragraph (2). The

attendance of witnesses may be compelled by

subpoena as provided in Rule 45.

 (2) A party must obtain leave of court,

which shall be granted to the extent

consistent with the principles stated in Rule

26(b)(2), if the person to be examined is

confined in prison . . . .

Case 2:02-cv-02166-MCE -EFB Document 63 Filed 01/25/06 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

But the discovery order made April 13, 2005, granted defendants

the required leave.

Given plaintiff’s confusion about whether the April 13,

2005, order constituted the leave required by Rule 30(a)(2), it

cannot not be said his failure to appear for deposition was

willful and sanctions are not warranted. 

Defendants’ October 7, 2005, motion therefore is denied. 

Defendants may notice plaintiff’s deposition again for a

reasonable time and place. If plaintiff wilfully fails to appear

pursuant to due notice the court will upon duly noticed motion

impose severe sanctions which, in light of the unavailability of

other sanctions, likely may be dismissal of plaintiff’s claims. 

Dated: January 24, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:02-cv-02166-MCE -EFB Document 63 Filed 01/25/06 Page 3 of 3