Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01974/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01974-4/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENELL THORPE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. HEARN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-1974 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s objections to his noticed deposition. 

(ECF No. 32.) In his objections, plaintiff requests that his deposition be postponed by ninety 

days. For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Plaintiff’s request to 

postpone his deposition is denied. 

Plaintiff alleges that the deposition notice contains a request for production of documents. 

Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive thirty days notice for the request for production of 

documents, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1) requires that a party seeking a deposition give 

“reasonable notice” of the deposition. When a deposition notice “requires production of 

documents at the deposition, Rule 30(b)(2) dictates that ‘reasonable notice’ is provided as stated 

in Rule 34.” Guzman v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., 2014 WL 1670094, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 

Case 2:19-cv-01974-KJM-KJN Document 33 Filed 04/07/20 Page 1 of 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

2

28, 2014). “Rule 34(b)(2) states that the party to whom a request for production of documents is 

directed must respond within 30 days after service of the request.” Id. (citing Ghosh v. Cal. Dept. 

of Health Services, 1995 WL 105323, at *3 (9th Cir. 1995).)

Plaintiff provides no evidence supporting his claim that he received less than thirty days 

notice for the request for production of documents. Plaintiff does not attach a copy of the request 

for production of documents to his objections. Plaintiff also does not identify the date his 

deposition is scheduled. For these reasons, the undersigned finds that plaintiff’s objection that the 

request for production of documents was not timely served is not well supported.

Plaintiff also argues that defendants have access to the documents sought in the request 

for production of documents. However, plaintiff did not attach a copy of the request for 

production of documents to his objections. Plaintiff also failed to identify any specific documents 

he alleges defendants have access to. For these reasons, plaintiff’s objection that defendants have 

access to the documents sought in the request for production of documents is without merit.

Plaintiff also argues that because he has just begun discovery, the request for production 

of documents is premature. This objection is without merit because if plaintiff obtains discovery 

after his deposition that is relevant to his responses to the request for production of documents, 

plaintiff shall supplement his responses to the request for production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26 (e)(1)(A) (a party who has responded to a request for production of documents must 

supplement or correct their responses in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material 

respect the response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has 

not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request to postpone his 

deposition by ninety days, contained in his March 23, 2020 objections (ECF No. 32), is denied.

Dated: April 7, 2020

thor1974.36

Case 2:19-cv-01974-KJM-KJN Document 33 Filed 04/07/20 Page 2 of 2