Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02868/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02868-27/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WALTER HOWARD WHITE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SMYERS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-2868 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

 Currently pending is the ex parte motion of defendant Pomazal to set the continued 

deposition of plaintiff, a prisoner currently incarcerated at the California Health Care Facility 

(CHCF). See ECF No. 186. For the reasons set forth herein, defendant’s motion will be granted 

and additional briefing will be required of all defendants. Plaintiff is admonished that his full 

cooperation with his continued deposition will be a precondition for the continuation of this 

action. 

 Defendants are represented by three different attorneys.1

 Defendants’ protracted struggles 

to complete plaintiff’s deposition were summarized by order of this court filed July 14, 2015. At 

that time plaintiff was incarcerated at High Desert State Prison (HDSP). As set forth therein, 

 

1

 Defendant Miranda is represented by Mr. Thomas Cregger; defendant Pomazal is represented 

by Mr. Noah Blechman; and defendants Lankford, Rofling, Mayes, Schmidt, Lee and Swingle are 

now represented by Deputy Attorney General Mr. John Scott Smith. 

Case 2:12-cv-02868-MCE-AC Document 189 Filed 08/23/16 Page 1 of 5
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

ECF No. 153 at 5-8 (most fns. omitted): 

Plaintiff has filed numerous documents opposing defendants’ 

requests that plaintiff be further deposed. Plaintiff has previously 

appeared twice for his deposition. The initial session, held 

November 10, 2014, was concluded after approximately two hours 

in response to plaintiff’s complaints of pain and difficulty 

concentrating. The second session, held January 22, 2015, was 

concluded after approximately three hours for the same reasons, 

despite allowance for breaks so that plaintiff could take his pain 

medication and lie down as needed. A third session was 

provisionally scheduled at CSATF [California Substance Abuse 

and Treatment Facility] for April 29, 2015. In seeking leave to 

conduct that deposition, defense counsel filed a joint statement 

indicating that, assuming plaintiff’s cooperation, defendant Miranda 

could complete his questioning in two hours, defendant Pomazal 

could complete his questioning in another two hours, and the AG 

defendants anticipated thirty minutes for follow-up questions. See 

ECF No. 125. However, plaintiff’s April 2015 transfer from 

CSATF [back] to HDSP brought these matters to a halt. 

Plaintiff opposes, for several reasons, defendants’ requests that he 

be further deposed. Plaintiff alleges that his participation causes 

him undue pain, stress and health risks; and that, due to the side 

effects of his significant pain medications, his testimony (including 

testimony already given) may be inaccurate and/or prejudicial. See 

generally ECF No. 119, 127. Plaintiff also asserts an alleged 

conspiracy between [formerly assigned] Deputy Attorney General 

(DAG) Hung and the court reporter to prepare false and misleading 

transcripts of plaintiff’s deposition testimony, thus engaging in 

spoliation of evidence. See ECF No. 119. 

. . . . Plaintiff has submitted no evidence that raises any reasonable 

inference of misconduct on the part of the DAG. On the contrary, 

the court finds plaintiff’s accusations both frivolous and harassing. 

Plaintiff is reminded of this court’s prior admonition concerning his 

excessive filings in this action and again informs plaintiff of the 

undersigned’s authority to restrict his court access for the remainder 

of this litigation. 

The court construes plaintiff’s opposition to his continued 

deposition as a motion for protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c), 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to that rule, a party may 

obtain a court order limiting or forbidding discovery, including a 

deposition, upon a showing of good cause and for the purpose of 

protecting a party “from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or 

undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A), (B). 

The court finds that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause 

precluding his continued deposition. Plaintiff’s conspiracy and 

spoliation allegations lack evidentiary support. Plaintiff’s 

objections based on the side effects to his medications is a risk that 

plaintiff assumed when he commenced this litigation. Defendants 

previously sought to accommodate plaintiff’s complaints of undue 

pain and stress by arranging for a gurney and pain medications 

Case 2:12-cv-02868-MCE-AC Document 189 Filed 08/23/16 Page 2 of 5
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

during the course of his continued deposition, and are instructed to 

do so for plaintiff’s continued deposition.2 Plaintiff may also 

request necessary accommodations from the HDSP Litigation 

Coordinator and staff. 

Plaintiff is required to fully participate in the discovery process 

which he initiated. As a prolific writer who has propounded 

extensive discovery requests and required this court to resolve 

numerous and lengthy discovery disputes, plaintiff must recognize 

that defendants are equally entitled to obtain relevant information. 

It would be unfair and prejudicial to defendants to allow plaintiff to 

continue prosecuting this action while depriving defendants of their 

right to complete their deposition of plaintiff. Defendants have 

already invested substantial time and expense in repeatedly 

rescheduling plaintiff’s deposition, and pursuing the matter in this 

court. Plaintiff is informed that willful refusal to cooperate in 

discovery provides grounds for sanctions, including dismissal of 

this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d) (failure to attend one’s own 

deposition); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (involuntary dismissal for failure 

to prosecute). 

For these reasons, the court grants defendants’ requests to 

reconvene and conclude plaintiff’s deposition. Although, due to 

breaks, the deposition may last an entire day, the period of time for 

questioning and answering shall be strictly limited to a total of fiveand-one-half hours, as previously estimated by defense counsel. 

All defense counsel shall coordinate with the HDSP Litigation 

Coordinator in an effort to schedule plaintiff’s third and final 

deposition, and to make special arrangements to accommodate 

plaintiff’s personal needs. Defense counsel should attempt to 

scheduled plaintiff’s deposition for one full day only, no earlier 

than August 31, 2015, but no later than October 16, 2015, with the 

goal of defendant Pomazal obtaining his additional discovery 

before the deposition, and in an effort to bring discovery to a close 

in this case at the earliest reasonable opportunity. 

 Notwithstanding this order, on October 6, 2015, the court suspended the deadline for 

conducting plaintiff’s continued deposition, in response to plaintiff’s statements that he had not 

received all of his legal materials after being transferred back to HDSP from CSATF. See ECF 

No. 171. The court directed the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) to contact the HDSP and 

CSATF Litigation Coordinators to ascertain the location of plaintiff’s legal materials and to 

 

2

 [Original fn. 6, ECF No. 153 at 7.] These arrangements were made by defense counsel. See 

ECF No. 125 at 2. The court previously invited plaintiff to “identify specific and reasonable 

accommodations that would support his participation in a continued deposition,” and to submit 

his statement within seven days after the filing date of the court’s April 8, 2015 order. See ECF 

No. 120 at 3-4. Plaintiff’s only substantive response, filed May 26, 2015, ECF No. 148, again 

requests that no further deposition be held. Plaintiff’s statements that his current medical care is 

too inadequate for him to function, and that he must first obtain surgery, are not persuasive in 

light of plaintiff’s multiple and detailed filings in this action. 

Case 2:12-cv-02868-MCE-AC Document 189 Filed 08/23/16 Page 3 of 5
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

inform the court when plaintiff obtained possession of all his materials. Id. On October 27, 2015, 

the OAG so informed the court. ECF No. 176. Thereafter, plaintiff filed numerous matters 

unrelated to his continued deposition, and was transferred from HDSP to Salinas Valley State 

Prison (SVSP), and then to CHCF. Defendant Pomazal’s recent motion was filed during 

plaintiff’s incarceration at SVSP. 

 For the many reasons previously identified by this court, defendants will be permitted to 

schedule plaintiff’s continued deposition and plaintiff will be required to cooperate fully. 

Plaintiff initiated this action and is required to be forthcoming to defendants in disclosing the 

evidence and rationale supporting his claims, and to fully participate in the discovery process, 

particularly his deposition. Defendants have invested significant time and expense in 

accommodating the repeated rescheduling of plaintiff’s deposition. Plaintiff is admonished that if 

he fails to fully cooperate in completing his deposition, the court will consider, in the first 

instance, whether dismissal of this action is the most appropriate sanction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(d) (failure to attend one’s own deposition); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (involuntary dismissal for 

failure to prosecute). 

 Due to plaintiff’s recent transfer to CHCF and current lack of access to his legal materials, 

see ECF Nos. 187, 188, defendants will be required to obtain the following information and make 

the following arrangements and so inform the court. Specifically, Deputy Attorney General 

Smith shall inquire of CHCF, and CDCR generally, when and where plaintiff will be available to 

participate in a one-day deposition, with reasonable accommodations for his medical needs and 

access to his legal materials. Once plaintiff’s availability is ascertained, all defense counsel shall, 

in coordination with the appropriate prison Litigation Coordinator, agree upon a date to continue 

and conclude plaintiff’s deposition, and shall promptly file a joint statement so informing the 

court. Plaintiff is admonished that he has no discretion in this matter. The court will entertain no 

further motions for protective order to preclude or postpone plaintiff’s continued deposition, or 

any other filing that seeks the same result. 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:12-cv-02868-MCE-AC Document 189 Filed 08/23/16 Page 4 of 5
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 

5

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Defendant’s Pomazal’s motion to re-set plaintiff’s continued deposition, ECF No. 186, 

is granted. Although, with breaks, the deposition may last an entire day, defendants may actively 

depose plaintiff for a total time of five-and-one-half hours, assuming plaintiff’s cooperation.3 

2. Within seven (7) days after the filing date of this order, Deputy Attorney General Mr. 

Smith shall inquire of CHCF, and CDCR generally, when and where plaintiff will be available to 

participate in a one-day deposition, with reasonable accommodations for his medical needs and 

access to his legal materials. Within twenty-one (21) days after the filing date of this order, Mr. 

Smith shall file and serve a statement informing the court of the results of this inquiry. If such 

information is not available within twenty-one days, Mr. Smith shall so inform the court, and 

shall file and serve a statement every fourteen (14) days thereafter informing the court of the 

status of this inquiry, until such time that it is clear when and where plaintiff will be available to 

resume and complete his deposition. 

3. Within seven (7) days after securing plaintiff’s availability, as set forth above, all 

defense counsel shall file and serve a joint statement informing the court of the place, date and 

time agreed upon for the deposition, and the reasonable accommodations to be accorded plaintiff; 

defendants shall provide plaintiff with as much advance notice as possible. 

 SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 23, 2016 

 

3

 Should plaintiff fail to cooperate, defendants may, during the course of the deposition, attempt 

to arrange a telephone conference with the undersigned, and/or shall promptly file a statement so 

informing the court. A mid-deposition telephone conference must be arranged so as to include 

plaintiff, via speaker-phone or otherwise. 

Case 2:12-cv-02868-MCE-AC Document 189 Filed 08/23/16 Page 5 of 5