Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00332/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00332-13/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Luckey
Plaintiff
Visalia Unified School District
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY LUCKEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

VISALIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL

ECF NO. 42

On December 8, 2014, Defendant Visalia Unified School District (“Defendant” or 

“VUSD”) filed a motion to compel Plaintiff Timothy Luckey (“Plaintiff”) to submit to an oral 

deposition. (ECF No. 42.) Defendant also seeks sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to appear at two 

previously noticed depositions.

Plaintiff’s opposition was due on December 24, 2014. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any 

opposition to Defendant’s motion to compel. Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), 

Plaintiff is not entitled to be heard in opposition to Defendant’s motion at oral argument. 

Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate for the motion to be submitted upon the record and 

briefs on file and the hearing set for January 7, 2015 will be vacated. See Local Rule 230(g). 

The parties shall not appear at that time.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel.

/ / /

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/30/14 Page 1 of 5
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

I.

BACKGROUND

The operative complaint in this action is the Third Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff 

on September 26, 2013. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action. Plaintiff 

alleges that his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (codified as 42 U.S.C. § 

2000e, et seq.) were violated by Defendant because Plaintiff was subjected to differential 

treatment based upon his race (black) and his sex (male). Visalia Unified School District is the 

sole defendant in this action. Plaintiff alleges that he was employed at Crestwood Elementary 

School within VUSD. Plaintiff contends that he was segregated and isolated from other staff and 

students by Jim Sullivan, the principal at Crestwood Elementary School and such treatment was 

based on Plaintiff’s race and sex. Plaintiff complained to Jim Sullivan and to human resources 

about the differential treatment, but was reprimanded for his complaints. Plaintiff was given 

reduced work hours and eventually terminated, allegedly because Plaintiff threatened to file an 

EEOC complaint regarding the mistreatment.

Defendant filed the present motion to compel on December 8, 2014. (ECF No. 42.) 

Defendant contends that they duly noticed a deposition of Plaintiff scheduled to occur on 

September 16, 2014. This deposition was later rescheduled to October 13, 2014. Plaintiff did 

not appear for his own deposition on October 13, 2014.

Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff regarding the failure to appear and received no 

response. Defendant scheduled another deposition for November 10, 2014. Plaintiff did not 

appear at the second deposition. Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff informing Plaintiff that the 

present motion to compel would be forthcoming. Defendant received no response to this letter. 

Defendant now seeks an order compelling Plaintiff’s attendance at a deposition and for 

sanctions.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/30/14 Page 2 of 5
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

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS FOR DEPOSITIONS AND MOTIONS TO COMPEL

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 governs oral depositions and states, in pertinent part:

(a) When a Deposition May Be Taken.

(1) Without Leave. A party may, by oral questions, depose any 

person, including a party, without leave of court except as provided 

in Rule 30(a)(2).1 The deponent’s attendance may be compelled 

by subpoena under Rule 45.

...

(d) Duration; Sanction; Motion to Terminate or Limit.

...

(2) Sanction. The court may impose an appropriate sanction—

including the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred by 

any party—on a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair 

examination of the deponent.

Motions to compel are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Rule 37 states, 

in pertinent part:

(a) Motion for an Order Compelling Disclosure or Discovery.

(1) In General. On notice to other parties and all affected persons, 

a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. 

The motion must include a certification that the movant has in 

good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or 

party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain 

it without court action.

...

(d) Party's Failure to Attend Its Own Deposition, Serve 

Answers to Interrogatories, or Respond to a Request for 

Inspection.

(1) In General.

(A) Motion; Grounds for Sanctions. The court where the action is 

pending may, on motion, order sanctions if:

(i) a party or a party's officer, director, or managing agent--or a 

person designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4)--fails, after 

being served with proper notice, to appear for that person's 

deposition; or

(ii) a party, after being properly served with interrogatories under 

Rule 33 or a request for inspection under Rule 34, fails to serve its 

answers, objections, or written response.

(B) Certification. A motion for sanctions for failing to answer or 

respond must include a certification that the movant has in good 

faith conferred or attempted to confer with the party failing to act 

in an effort to obtain the answer or response without court action.

(2) Unacceptable Excuse for Failing to Act. A failure described 

in Rule 37(d)(1)(A) is not excused on the ground that the discovery 

sought was objectionable, unless the party failing to act has a 

 

1 There is no indication that any of the circumstances provided for in Rule 30(a)(2) apply with respect to Plaintiff’s 

deposition.

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/30/14 Page 3 of 5
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

pending motion for a protective order under Rule 26(c).

(3) Types of Sanctions. Sanctions may include any of the orders 

listed in Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi). Instead of or in addition to these 

sanctions, 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.

III.

DISCUSSION

Defendant’s motion demonstrates that Defendant attempted to depose Plaintiff on two 

separate dates and Plaintiff failed to appear at his own deposition both times. (See Decl. of Ryan 

T. Nelson in Supp. of Mot. for Order Compelling Pl. to Submit to an Oral Deposition; and 

Sanctions (“Nelson Decl.”), at pg. 2.) Defendant’s motion further demonstrates that Defendant 

attempted to confer with Plaintiff in good faith in an effort to obtain Plaintiff’s cooperation 

without court action. (See Nelson Decl., at pp. 2-3.) Plaintiff’s failure to attend his duly 

scheduled deposition appears to be unexcused, as Plaintiff has not filed any type of opposition to 

Defendant’s motion to compel. Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion to compel 

and order Plaintiff to pay Defendant’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees.

Defendant’s motion identifies expenses which include $350.00 in attorney’s fees and $95 

in court reporter costs, which were incurred as a result of Plaintiff’s nonappearance. (See Nelson 

Decl, at pg. 3.) Defendant indicated that the attorney’s fees consisted of one hour, at a rate of 

$175.00 per hour, to prepare the motion to compel and an anticipated one hour attending the 

hearing on the motion to compel. Since the Court deemed it appropriate to rule on the motion to 

compel on the briefs and no hearing was held, the Court will award only one hour in attorney’s 

fees as a sanction. Thus, the total sanctions awarded will be $270.00.

The Court will order Plaintiff to attend his own deposition, set at a future date and time 

by Defendant. Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to comply with this order will result in further 

sanctions, including but not limited to dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims or any of the other sanctions 

enumerated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi).

/ / /

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/30/14 Page 4 of 5
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

5

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to appear at his own 

deposition and that failure was unexcused.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing scheduled for January 7, 2015 is VACATED;

2. Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED;

3. Plaintiff shall attend a deposition at a future date and time properly noticed by 

Defendant;

4. Plaintiff shall pay Defendant $270.00 in expenses;

5. Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to comply with this order and future failure to 

comply with discovery obligations will result in further sanctions, which may 

include dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 45 Filed 12/30/14 Page 5 of 5