Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01904/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01904-12/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUINCY SIMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. CABRERA,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S 

DEPOSITION AND PROVIDING 

PLAINTIFF THIRTY DAYS WITHIN 

WHICH TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN 

THE AMOUNT OF $595.00

(Doc. 52, 54, and 55)

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Quincy Sims (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 21, 2012. This 

action for damages is proceeding against Defendant M. Cabrera (“Defendant”) for failing to 

protect Plaintiff from the threat of harm by gang members or affiliates while he was at Kern 

Valley State Prison, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and for 

reasonable expenses incurred in attempting to depose Plaintiff and in bringing the motion, filed on 

January 13, 2015. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. (Doc. 52.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on January 23, 

2015, and Defendant filed a reply on January 30, 2015. (Docs. 54, 55.) The motion has been 

submitted upon the record without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). 

///

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 59 Filed 04/01/15 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

2

II. Discussion

A. Motion to Compel Deposition

On January 9, 2015, Plaintiff appeared for his deposition and he initially answered 

questions. (Motion to Compel, Ex. B, Sims Depo.) However, Plaintiff subsequently began 

expressing resistance toward questions that, in his opinion, impermissibly strayed beyond 

Defendant’s direct conduct, and the deposition ultimately ended prematurely as a result. (Id.) 

Defendant now moves to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and Plaintiff opposes the motion.

When a deponent appears for his deposition but refuses to answer questions, the proper 

remedy is a court order to testify, and based on a review of the deposition transcript, Defendant is 

entitled to such an order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3); Estrada v. Rowland, 69 F.3d 405, 406 (9th Cir. 

1995). In his opposition, Plaintiff attempts to justify his refusal to answer certain questions on the 

basis that counsel was asking irrelevant questions regarding other inmates and staff, which would 

endanger his safety if he answered. Plaintiff’s position lacks merit, however.

The scope of discovery is broad, Republic of Ecuador v. Mackay, 742 F.3d 860, 866 (9th 

Cir. 2014) (citing Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1993)), and “[p]arties may obtain 

discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery 

appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,” and “[f]or good 

cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the 

action.” Id. 

In this case, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant acted with deliberate indifference to a 

substantial risk of harm to his personal safety. (Doc. 7, Amend. Comp.) Plaintiff is a former gang 

affiliate who was assaulted by a gang affiliated inmate. (Id.) Plaintiff subsequently sent 

Defendant a request for interview form in which he requested to be housed with Nation of Islam 

Muslim inmates rather than gang-affiliated inmates, but Defendant allegedly disregarded 

Plaintiff’s gang misclassification, which endangered his safety. (Id.) During Plaintiff’s 

deposition, counsel sought to question him about issues relating to religion, gangs, and the inmate 

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 59 Filed 04/01/15 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

3

who attacked him, all of which fall firmly within the broad scope of discovery. (Motion to 

Compel, Ex. B, Sims Depo.) 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is granted and Plaintiff

is warned that if he refuses to cooperate at his next deposition, he will be subject to sanctions 

deemed appropriate by the Court, which may include dismissal of his case, with prejudice. 

Plaintiff’s pro se status does not shield him from the requirement that he engage in discovery in 

good faith, and Plaintiff’s objections to counsel’s deposition questions on January 9, 2015, were 

not justified under the law. A professed interest in staying out of others’ business does not excuse 

Plaintiff from having to answer the deposition questions. (E.g., Doc. 52-2, Ex. B, depo pp. 12:23-

25, 14:18-24, 15:17-20.) 

B. Reasonable Costs Incurred in Bringing Motion to Compel

If a motion to compel is granted, the Court shall require the party whose conduct 

necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s 

reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (quotation marks 

omitted). However, “the court must not order this payment if the motion was substantially 

justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Id. 

Defendant is not entitled to recoup the costs incurred in attempting to take the deposition,

given that Plaintiff did not fail to appear and he did not violate a court order compelling his 

deposition.1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b), (d). Defendant’s counsel attested that she spent 3.5 hours 

preparing the motion to compel, at a rate of $170.00 per hour. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall be 

granted an additional thirty days within which to respond to Defendant’s request for reasonable 

expenses incurred in the amount of $595.00. 

III. Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition, filed on January 13, 2015, is 

GRANTED;

 

1 However, any failure to cooperate at the next deposition in contravention of this order will be sanctionable conduct. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). 

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 59 Filed 04/01/15 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

4

2. Plaintiff is required to appear for and testify at his deposition, which may be 

conducted in person or by videoconference; and

3. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order within which to 

file a response to Defendant’s request for reasonable expenses in the amount of 

$595.00.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 59 Filed 04/01/15 Page 4 of 4