Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01002/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01002-14/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYRALISA LAVENA STEVENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al.

Defendants.

No. 1:17-cv-01002-JLT-SAB (PC)

 ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTIONS TO TAKING OF DEPOSITION

 (ECF Nos. 85, 86)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for the Court to take notice of Exhibits A-I to 

A-28, and objections to Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to participate in deposition. (ECF 

Nos. 85, 86.) 

On October 1, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s 

participation in her deposition and extended the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines. 

(ECF No. 84.) 

Plaintiff now objects to Defendants’ motion to compel her deposition arguing that she is 

being compelled to be a witness against himself and “Defendants have emailed malware to 

Plaintiff’s computer to hinder [her] ability to respond, falsified material facts-thus committing 

INTRINSIC FRAUD, conspired with Vertez to change Plaintiff from a Plaintiff into a witness, 

amounting to EXTRINSIC FRAUD, violations of the CFAA-Title 18 U.S.C. § 1030.” (ECF No. 

86 at 1-2.) In support of her objections, Plaintiff has submitted numerous exhibits. (ECF No. 

85.) 

Although Plaintiff argues that she will be compelled to be a witness against herself, as 

Case 1:17-cv-01002-JLT-SAB Document 87 Filed 10/10/24 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

stated in the Court’s October 1, 2024, order, “Defendants are entitled to depose Plaintiff, within 

the parameters of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and orders of the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30; 

ECF No. 78 at 2.” (ECF No. 84 at 4.) In addition, the Court has ordered that Plaintiff appear inperson at the nearest Office of the Attorney General in order to participate in the taking of her 

deposition to prevent any potential technical difficulties. Further, Plaintiff has provided no valid

evidence or argument that a violation of the CFAA took place. “The CFAA was enacted in 1984 

to enhance the government's ability to prosecute computer crimes [and] was originally designed 

to target hackers[.]” LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 

18 U.S.C. § 1030). “The CFAA prohibits a number of different computer crimes, the majority of 

which involve accessing computers without authorization or in excess of authorization, and then 

taking specified forbidden actions, ranging from obtaining information to damaging a computer 

or computer data.” Id. at 1130. The CFAA is a criminal statute which creates a limited right of 

action for private persons injured by such crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g). A private plaintiff must 

prove that the defendant violated one of the provisions of § 1030(a)(1)-(7), and that the violation 

involved at least one of five factors set forth by subclause in the statute. See LVRC Holdings 

LLC, 581 F.3d at 1131. The plain language of the CFAA targets the access of computer 

information, rather than misuse or misappropriation. United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854, 863 

(9th Cir. 2012). There is no valid evidence to support a finding that Defendants improperly 

accessed Plaintiff’s computer information. 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has provided no valid legal basis to refuse to be deposed 

and Plaintiff’s objections are HEREBY OVERRULED. Plaintiff is again reminded that she must 

participate in the taking of her deposition and the failure to do so may result in the imposition of 

sanctions, including dismissal of the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-01002-JLT-SAB Document 87 Filed 10/10/24 Page 2 of 2