Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02631/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02631-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bottling Group, LLC
Defendant
Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company
Defendant
Steven A. Troie
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

STEVEN A. TROIE

Plaintiff,

v.

BOTTLING GROUP, LLC

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-2631-MCE-KJN PS 

ORDER

At the April 28, 2016 status conference, the court addressed case scheduling, and a pretrial 

scheduling order is issued separately. However, the court also discussed various other 

miscellaneous issues and pending motions with the parties, which are addressed and resolved by 

this order.

Status of plaintiff’s bankruptcy case

Plaintiff indicated that he filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case on March 22, 2016 to

prevent a foreclosure sale/auction on his house. (ECF No. 9.) However, that bankruptcy case 

(Case No. 16-21784) was dismissed on April 4, 2016. At the status conference, the parties 

confirmed that no bankruptcy stay was presently in place. 

////

////

Case 2:15-cv-02631-MCE-KJN Document 19 Filed 04/29/16 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

2

Naming of proper defendant

As reflected in the parties’ status reports (ECF Nos. 13, 16), and as stipulated to at the 

status conference, Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company was erroneously named as a defendant. Instead, 

the parties agree that the proper defendant is Bottling Group, LLC.

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel

On April 11, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 9.) It is 

“well-established that there is generally no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases.” United 

States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996). Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the 

ADA itself does not mandate the appointment of counsel for a civil plaintiff. Furthermore, there 

are no exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel in this case. Although 

the court is sympathetic to the difficulties faced by pro se litigants in litigating their own cases in 

federal court, the court has extremely limited resources to appoint attorneys in civil cases. Here, 

plaintiff’s claim is not unusually complex and can be reasonably prosecuted by a pro se plaintiff. 

As such, plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

At the status conference, plaintiff indicated that he may be on the verge of retaining 

counsel. Although plaintiff has the right to represent himself in this action, the court strongly 

encourages plaintiff to continue making efforts to obtain counsel, if he is able to do so. 

Regardless of whether plaintiff is successful in obtaining counsel, plaintiff himself shall continue 

to comply with all court orders, court deadlines, the court’s Local Rules, and the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure.1

Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance

Plaintiff also filed a motion for an unspecified continuance, which appears to be related to 

his motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 9.) In light of the court’s denial of the motion 

for appointment of counsel, the court also denies the requested continuance, but without 

prejudice. If plaintiff successfully retains counsel, and plaintiff’s counsel believes that a 

particular case deadline should be extended, that counsel shall confer with defendant’s counsel 

 

1 A copy of the court’s Local Rules can be obtained in person from the Clerk’s Office or on the 

court’s website. 

Case 2:15-cv-02631-MCE-KJN Document 19 Filed 04/29/16 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

and either (a) submit a stipulation and proposed order for the court’s consideration, or (b) file a 

motion to modify the scheduling order if defendant refuses to stipulate to the proposed extension.

Plaintiff’s request for the EEOC to turn over allegedly withheld charge documents

Plaintiff contends that the EEOC withheld unspecified documents related to his 

administrative charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC, and seeks an order that the EEOC 

turn over such documents. (ECF No. 9.) Although plaintiff may be able to request or subpoena 

relevant documents from the EEOC in the discovery process, the EEOC is not a party to this 

lawsuit, and there appears to be no legal basis for plaintiff’s requested order at this time. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request is denied.

Plaintiff’s motion for electronic filing privileges

Plaintiff has also requested permission to file electronically. (ECF No. 17.) “Any person 

appearing pro se may not utilize electronic filing except with the permission of the assigned Judge 

or Magistrate Judge.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 133(b)(2). Although electronic filing may be more 

convenient, the Local Rules clearly contemplate that electronic filing privileges would not be 

routinely granted to pro se litigants. Here, plaintiff has articulated no specific basis for why an 

exception should be granted in his case. Indeed, plaintiff resides in Sacramento, California, in 

relative proximity to the court. Therefore, plaintiff’s request for electronic filing privileges is 

denied. 

Defendant’s request for additional time to depose plaintiff

Defendant requested advance authorization to have two days to depose plaintiff. “Unless 

otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a deposition is limited to 1 day of 7 hours. The court 

must allow additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2) if needed to fairly examine the 

deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the 

examination.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). At least at this time, defendant has not shown why a 

variance from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is necessary. The fact that plaintiff is 

proceeding without counsel does not mean that plaintiff would necessarily impede or delay the 

examination, or that defendant would not be able to fairly examine plaintiff in 7 hours. 

Therefore, defendant’s request is denied, but without prejudice to its renewal if the one day of 

Case 2:15-cv-02631-MCE-KJN Document 19 Filed 04/29/16 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

deposition testimony proves insufficient. In that case, the parties may agree to additional time at 

the deposition, or if the parties are unable to so agree, they may seek a telephonic conference with 

the court for resolution of their dispute.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The sole named defendant in this action is defendant Bottling Group, LLC. The Clerk 

of Court shall terminate Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company as a defendant.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

3. Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance is DENIED without prejudice.

4. Plaintiff’s request for an order directing the EEOC to turn over certain charge 

documents is DENIED.

5. Plaintiff’s motion for electronic filing privileges is DENIED.

6. Defendant’s request for additional time to depose plaintiff is DENIED without 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. This order resolves ECF Nos. 9 and 17. 

Dated: April 28, 2016

 

Case 2:15-cv-02631-MCE-KJN Document 19 Filed 04/29/16 Page 4 of 4