Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02103/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02103-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN D. VOTH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2103 LKK GGH P

vs.

T. ALBRIGHT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. On January 13, 2006, defendants filed a motion to compel the deposition of plaintiff. 

Defendants had noticed plaintiff’s deposition for January 9, 2006; however, although plaintiff

had not previously informed defense counsel of any objection to the taking of his deposition,

when defendants’ counsel arrived at Salinas Valley State Prison on the designated date, plaintiff

objected to the taking of his deposition because he had just filed, on January 6, 2006, a motion

for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff asked that his deposition be re-noticed once a decision by

the court had been rendered. See Motion to Compel Deposition, pp. 1-2; Declaration of Jeri

Papone. By their motion, defendants seek an order compelling the deposition of plaintiff in order

to avoid further prejudice and also seek the sanction of dismissal should plaintiff fail for a second

time to submit to a reasonably noticed deposition, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 37(b). Id., at 2. 

Case 2:04-cv-02103-LKK -GGH Document 51 Filed 05/12/06 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

2

The parties stipulated to an extension of the discovery cut-off deadline and filed a

request to extend the court discovery deadline, which request was partially granted, by order filed

on February 23, 2006. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel was denied on February 9,

2006, and his request for reconsideration of the denial to the district judge was denied as

untimely, by order filed on March 30, 2006.

No opposition to the motion to compel his deposition was filed by plaintiff nor

has there been any follow-up by defendants informing the court whether or not plaintiff’s

deposition was re-noticed and has been taken. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ January 13, 2006 motion for the

court to compel plaintiff’s deposition is denied as moot without prejudice to defendants

demonstrating, within 10 days, that the motion has not been mooted by subsequent events. 

DATED: 5/12/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

voth2103.osc

Case 2:04-cv-02103-LKK -GGH Document 51 Filed 05/12/06 Page 2 of 2