Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01216/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01216-17/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

JAMES L. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAMEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01216-AWI-SKO PC

ORDER RE MOTION

(Doc. 76)

Plaintiff James L. Davis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 8, 2010, Defendants filed

a motion requesting the Court to compel Plaintiff’s appearance at his deposition. Defendants note

that Plaintiff refused to appear at a previously scheduled deposition and request that sanctions be

imposed on Plaintiff. Defendants also request the Court to extend the deadlines for the completion

of discovery and the filing of dispositive motions because of the delays caused by Plaintiff.

Defendants claim that Plaintiff is housed at the California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo. 

Plaintiff was scheduled to be deposed on June 2, 2010 and did not notify Defendants regarding any

objections to the date, time or location of the deposition until the day of his deposition. On the

morning of June 2, 2010, Plaintiff handed a one-page document to the litigation coordinator at the

California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo stating that Plaintiff refused to participate in the

deposition because he was dissatisfied with the Court’s May 11, 2010 order denying Plaintiff’s

motions to compel. Defendants promptly filed this motion with the Court after Plaintiff failed to

appear at his duly-noticed deposition.

1

Case 1:06-cv-01216-AWI -SMS Document 78 Filed 08/10/10 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

I. Discussion

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)(1)(A)(i), the Court may impose sanctions

against Plaintiff for failing to appear at his deposition. The types of sanctions contemplated by that

rule are described in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)(3), which states that “[s]anctions may

include any of the orders listed in Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi)” and “the court must require the party

failing to act, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including

attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust."

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to attend his deposition was not substantially justified

and there are no circumstances that would make an award of expenses unjust. In the notice that

Plaintiff provided the morning of his deposition, Plaintiff states that he objects “to all

dispositions[sic] on the grounds that I’ve been denied all relevant discovery in this case by

defendants and their attorney, and, . . . the judge.” (Decl. of Ellen Y. Hung in Supp. of Mot. to

Compel Pl.’s Deposition and Sanctions, and to Modify the Scheduling Order Ex. B, ECF No. 76.) 

Plaintiff accuses the Court of placing itself “in an adversarial position with respect to plaintiff” and

“on these above grounds [Plaintiff] refuse[s]to give anyfarther[sic] disposition[sic].” (Id.) Notably,

Plaintiff has failed to provide any indication as to how the Court’s order was erroneous. Instead of

filing a motion reconsideration to challenge the Court’s order, Plaintiff has simply refused to

participate in the discovery process. Plaintiff has also failed to file an opposition or statement of

non-opposition to Defendants’ motion currently before the Court, as required byLocal Rule 230(l). 

Defendants have stated that a second deposition will be scheduled as soon as reasonably

possible. The Court will order Defendants to schedule and conduct the deposition within 30 days

of the date of service of this order, or show good cause why this thirty-day deadline should be

extended. If Plaintiff fails to attend the second scheduled deposition and his failure to attend is not

substantially justified, this action will be dismissed as a sanction against Plaintiff for failing to

participate in discovery.

Pursuant to Rule 37(d)(3), the Court must also order Plaintiff to pay all reasonable expenses

incurred by Plaintiff’s failure to attend his deposition. Defendants state that the expenses are

2

Case 1:06-cv-01216-AWI -SMS Document 78 Filed 08/10/10 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

undetermined at this time because the court reporter’s invoice is not yet available. The Court will

order Defendants to submit an accounting of all reasonable expenses associated with Plaintiff’s

failure to attend his deposition, which may include the cost of scheduling and arranging the

deposition and the costs incurred in preparing the motion presently before the Court.

Defendants also request that the Court modifythe current schedule to accommodate the delay

caused by Plaintiff’s failure to attend his own deposition. The Court will extend Defendants’

deadline for conducting discovery and filing dispositive motions to thirty days after Plaintiff’s

second scheduled deposition. Thus, after Defendants conduct Plaintiff’s deposition, they will have

thirty days to conduct any additional discovery and file anymotions to compel. This orderin no way

affects Plaintiff’s deadlines for conducting discovery or for filing dispositive motions.

II. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s attendance at his deposition is GRANTED;

a. Defendants are granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order

to schedule and conduct Plaintiff’s deposition;

b. Plaintiff shall attend his next properly scheduled deposition and is warned

that the failure to attend his deposition will result in dismissal of this action

if his absence is not substantially justified;

2. Defendants’ motion for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff is GRANTED;

a. Defendants shall submit an accounting of all reasonable expenses to Plaintiff

and to the Court within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order; 

b. Plaintiff shall pay Defendants all reasonable expenses caused by Plaintiff’s

failure to attend his June 2, 2010 deposition; and

///

///

///

///

///

3

Case 1:06-cv-01216-AWI -SMS Document 78 Filed 08/10/10 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

3. Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery schedule is GRANTED. Defendants’

deadline for conducting all discovery and for filing dispositive motions is extended

to thirty (30) days after the date of Plaintiff’s deposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:06-cv-01216-AWI -SMS Document 78 Filed 08/10/10 Page 4 of 4