Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01495/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01495-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald F. Martinez
Plaintiff
C. Rodriguez
Defendant

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD F. MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01495-JLT-BAK (SAB) (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RULE 27 DEPOSITIONS TO 

PERPETUATE TESTIMONY

(ECF No. 17)

Plaintiff Ronald F. Martinez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion under Rule 27 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to take the deposition of Defendant Rodriguez to perpetuate 

his testimony and preserve documentary evidence. (ECF No. 17.) 

Plaintiff appears to file the motion under Rule 27(a), which governs the taking of 

depositions to perpetuate testimony before an action is filed. Under this rule, a person seeking to 

perpetuate testimony may file a verified petition indicating “that the petitioner expects to be a 

party to an action cognizable in a United States court but cannot presently bring it or cause it to 

be brought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(a)(1)(A). Plaintiff states that he “expects to file the action 

complaining of[,] inter alia, retaliation by Defendant Rodriguez . . . .” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also 

indicates an intent to raise procedural due process claims against Defendant and other prison 

officials at California State Prison, Corcoran. 

Case 1:21-cv-01495-JLT-CDB Document 21 Filed 04/21/22 Page 1 of 3
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

This action has already been filed by Plaintiff, and thus, Rule 27(a) is inapplicable. To 

the extent that Plaintiff seeks to take the Defendant’s deposition under Rule 30, the request is 

premature. This complaint is still subject to screening, Defendant has not been served, and 

discovery has not yet commenced. Therefore, Plaintiff may not take Defendant’s deposition at 

this stage of the proceedings. 

Plaintiff also requests an order under Rule 27 to require Defendant to preserve documents 

related to inmate property inventory. Plaintiff bases his request on his belief, knowledge, and 

experience with CDCR’s property officers destroying his previous 1083 forms and property. He 

asserts that every time he is transferred within the facility, Plaintiff’s property is confiscated, a 

new form 1083 (inmate property inventory) is created and the previous 1083 form is discarded.

 Spoilation of evidence occurs when a party destroys, significantly alters, or fails to 

preserve property for another’s use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation. 

United States v. Kitsap Physicians Svs., 314 F.3d 995, 1001 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Akiona v. 

United States, 938 F.2d 158, 161 (9th Cir. 1991)). Under Rule 37 and the inherent power of the

federal courts, this Court may sanction a party who has engaged in the spoilation of evidence. 

Harris v. German, No. 1:15-cv-01462-DAD-GSA (PC), 2019 WL 6700513, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 

Dec. 6, 2019) (citing Compass Bank v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, 104 F. Supp. 3d 1040, 

1052–53 (S.D. Cal. 2015)).

Rule 27 does not authorize the Court to order Defendant to preserve documents related to 

Plaintiff’s claims. While Plaintiff expresses a generalized concern that Defendant will destroy 

relevant documents, Plaintiff’s request is premature and unwarranted. Plaintiff’s anticipation of 

spoilation of evidence does not justify an order compelling Defendant to preserve documents 

where the complaint has not been screened for cognizable claims, Defendant is not yet a party

this litigation, and discovery has not commenced.

///

///

///

///

Case 1:21-cv-01495-JLT-CDB Document 21 Filed 04/21/22 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s petition for Rule 27 depositions 

to perpetuate testimony, (ECF No. 17), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2022 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01495-JLT-CDB Document 21 Filed 04/21/22 Page 3 of 3