Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01143/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01143-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

1 07cv1143 JM (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUSSO BAILEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. HOLLISTER ID NO. 3662; WILLIAM

LANSDOWNE; RUDY RESCH; STAR

TOWING; GEORGE VALUERDE; SAN

DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTY NO.

1373; WILLIAM KOLENDER; 5

UNKNOWN POLICE AND SHERIFF

DEPUTIES; STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; COUNTY OF

SAN DIEGO; CITY OF SAN DIEGO; SAN

DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTIES

GARDENSHIRE and D. INGRAM,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.07cv1143 JM (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

ORDER COMPELLING COMPLETION

OF PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION AND

FOR ORDER ON PROPRIETY OF

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION OR

REFUSAL TO ANSWER DEPOSITION

QUESTIONS

[Doc. No. 45]

Defendants D. Hollister and the City of San Diego (the City) move to compel plaintiff Russo

Bailey to complete his deposition and request an order on the merit of Plaintiff’s refusal to answer

deposition questions following his objections on the basis of relevance and/or scope as to time frame. 

Plaintiff did not file an opposition to this motion. The Court vacated the hearing date and took the

matter under submission. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to compel

and ORDERS Plaintiff to contact Defendants to schedule the completion of his deposition, or else face

possible sanctions.

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-01143-JM-NLS Document 53 Filed 08/15/08 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 1

The facts are based on the statements in the declarations of Wendy Davisson and Carol Pollock

and on the lodged transcript of the deposition.

2 07cv1143 JM (NLS)

Relevant Facts.1

Defendants first started Plaintiff’s deposition on June 18, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. Plaintiff, counsel

for defendant County of San Diego (Stephanie Kish), and counsel for the City (Wendy Davisson) were

present. Davisson asked Plaintiff many questions regarding the facts concerning his allegations. 

Initially, Plaintiff answered many of the questions. But he later began to challenge Davisson on her

questions and question her competency. He objected to certain questions on the basis of relevance and

on the basis he would not provide information as to events that occurred beyond a ten-year time span. 

After objecting, Plaintiff refused to answer those questions.

Between 2:30 and 3:00 p.m. on June 18, the parties stipulated to resume the deposition at 12:00

p.m. the next day. Plaintiff appeared for his continued deposition on June 19, 2008. Davisson resumed

the deposition. Within half an hour, Plaintiff objected again to the questions and refused to answer

them. He left the deposition at around 12:30 p.m. Kish never had the opportunity to pose any questions

to Plaintiff.

Later that day, Davisson sent a letter to Plaintiff request that he contact her to schedule a time to

complete his deposition. She told him that she would seek the Court’s intervention, if necessary, to

compel the completion of the deposition. Plaintiff never contacted Davisson to reschedule the

deposition.

Davisson filed this motion to compel on July 16, 2008.

Discussion.

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s

claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1). “Relevant information need not be admissible at trial,”

so long as “the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” 

Id.

Where a party fails to cooperate in discovery, the party seeking discovery can move to compel

disclosure or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 37(a)(1). An evasive or incomplete answer in a deposition is

treated as a failure to disclose. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 37(a)(4). The party seeking discovery can move to

Case 3:07-cv-01143-JM-NLS Document 53 Filed 08/15/08 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 07cv1143 JM (NLS)

compel a deponent to answer a question in an oral deposition. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 37(a)(3)(B). If the

responding party still fails to cooperate, the moving party can seek sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. Proc.

37(a)(3)(A). Sanctions may also be awarded if a party fails to appear for a deposition. Fed. R. Civ.

Proc. 30(d)(2).

When moving to compel attendance at a deposition or disclosure of answers at a deposition, the

moving party must include a certification that it, in good faith, conferred or attempted to confer with the

party who failed or who failed to disclose responses to deposition questions. Fed. R. Civ. Proc.

37(a)(1). 

Here, Plaintiff never objected to the notice of deposition. He appeared for his deposition and

was initially cooperative. He returned on the second day to continue with his deposition. But in

response to several questions, Plaintiff stated his objections–none of which were based on privilege–and

refused to answer the questions posed. Then, he abruptly left his deposition before Defendants could

complete it. Davisson tried to contact Plaintiff to reschedule the deposition, and informed him she

would seek the Court’s intervention if necessary, but he never responded to her. Further, Plaintiff never

opposed this motion to compel.

In the deposition, Davisson sought information about these general facts: the factual support for

Plaintiff’s various claims, identification of which defendants were involved in which events, relation of

Plaintiff’s allegations to the federal rights he alleges were violated, and explanation of Plaintiff’s past

personal and professional life experiences, including his experience with the civil and criminal justice

systems. On their face, these inquiries appear relevant to Plaintiff’s claims in his first amended

complaint, which involve at least two events where Plaintiff interacted with law enforcement. Further,

Plaintiff will have the opportunity, at a hearing or at trial, to object to the admission of any deposition

testimony that would be inadmissible if the witness were present and testifying. Fed. R. Civ. Proc.

32(b). 

Order.

Based on the information before it, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s refusal to appear for his

deposition and answer questions is not justified. Further, any legitimate objections Plaintiff has to the

deposition questions can be addressed in his objections before trial. Therefore, this Court ORDERS

Case 3:07-cv-01143-JM-NLS Document 53 Filed 08/15/08 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 07cv1143 JM (NLS)

Plaintiff to contact Wendy Davisson of the City Attorney’s Office by August 22, 2008 and schedule the

completion of his deposition for no later than September 5, 2008. If Plaintiff fails to schedule the

completion of his deposition, Defendants shall file a notice with the Court on August 25, 2008 so

stating. If the Court receives such notice, it will set an Order to Show Cause hearing for why Plaintiff

should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with his discovery obligations and for failure to follow

this Court’s Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 15, 2008

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01143-JM-NLS Document 53 Filed 08/15/08 Page 4 of 4