Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00108/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00108-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
W. Hanks
Defendant
Horace Thomas
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HORACE THOMAS, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

W. HANKS, 

Defendant. 

______________________________

 )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 2:14-cv-00108-GEB-BMK 

(1) ORDER DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

DISCOVER PERSONNEL FILE OF 

PEACE OFFICER (DOC. 29); (2) 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S 

DEPOSITION AND TO RECOVER 

EXPENSES (DOC. 31); AND (3) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL (DOC. 32) 

(1) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISCOVER 

PERSONNEL FILE OF PEACE OFFICER (DOC. 29); (2) ORDER 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION AND TO RECOVER 

EXPENSES (DOC. 31); AND (3) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOC. 32) 

Before the Court are: Plaintiff Horace Thomas’s Motion to Discover 

Personnel File of Peace Officer (Doc. 29), (2) Defendant W. Hanks’s Motion to 

Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition and to Recover Expenses (Doc. 31), and (3) 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 32). After careful 

consideration of the Motions and the supporting and opposing memoranda, the 

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motions and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN 

Case 2:14-cv-00108-GEB-BMK Document 34 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 6
2 

PART Defendant’s Motion. The Court orders Plaintiff to participate in and testify 

at his deposition. 

I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Discover Personnel File of Peace Officer 

Plaintiff moves to compel production of Defendant’s personnel file. 

(Doc. 29.) Specifically, he seeks “excessive force complaints, racial bias 

complaints, falsifying information complaints, planting evidence complaints, [and] 

complaints that have a striking similarity to Plaintiff’s issues contained in the suit.” 

(Motion at 2-3.) Notably, Plaintiff did not request these records through the 

discovery process set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”). 

 FRCP Rule 37(a)(1) requires that motions to compel discovery “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.” Similarly, Local Rule 251(b) also states that a 

motion to compel discovery “shall not be heard unless . . . the parties have conferred 

and attempted to resolve their differences.” Plaintiff has made no such certification 

and, according to Defendant, “Plaintiff has not sought the requested documents by 

serving any discovery request on Defendant.” (Opp. at 2.) Insofar as Plaintiff 

failed to comply with the certification requirement of Rule 37(a)(1) and did not 

confer with defense counsel as required under Local Rule 251, the Court denies 

Case 2:14-cv-00108-GEB-BMK Document 34 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 6
3 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of Defendant’s personnel file. Rogers v. 

Giurbino, 288 F.R.D. 469, 477 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (“A court can deny a motion to 

compel solely because of a party’s failure to meet and confer prior to filing the 

motion.”); see Shuffle Master, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 

170-73 (D. Nev. 1996). 

II. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition and to Recover 

Expenses 

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s deposition. After timely 

noticing Plaintiff’s deposition, Plaintiff notified Defendant that he would not attend 

the deposition. (Hood Decl’n 3/28/2015 ¶¶ 2-3.) On March 3, 2016, defense 

counsel nevertheless appeared for the deposition, hoping Plaintiff would participate. 

(Id. ¶ 4.) However, a correctional officer informed defense counsel that Plaintiff 

refused to attend the deposition. (Id.) 

Defendant is entitled to conduct discovery, which includes taking 

Plaintiff’s deposition, to obtain information regarding the factual allegations, and 

legal claims and defenses at issue in this case. FRCP 26(b)(1) & 30. The moving 

party bears the burden of showing “actual and substantial prejudice” from the denial 

of discovery. Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 644 F.3d 845, 888 (9th Cir. 

2011). “Broad discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery.” 

Goehring v. Brophy, 94 F.3d 1294, 1305 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Case 2:14-cv-00108-GEB-BMK Document 34 Filed 05/02/16 Page 3 of 6
4 

Plaintiff’s refusal to appear at his deposition violates the Court’s 

Scheduling Order issued on October 22, 2015, which explicitly permitted Defendant 

to depose Plaintiff. (Doc. 28 at 2 (“defendant(s) may depose plaintiff”).) 

Plaintiff’s actions impede Defendant’s investigation of the factual allegations made 

against him and inhibit Defendant’s ability to adequately defend against Plaintiff’s 

claims. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s refusal to be deposed actually and 

substantially prejudices Defendant and, therefore, orders that Plaintiff participate in 

and testify at his deposition. See Shinseki, 644 F.3d at 888. 

Defense counsel also moves to recover expenses she incurred in 

attempting to take his deposition and in filing the instant motion. FRCP 30(d)(2) 

authorizes courts to “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.” The Court denies 

Defendant’s request for expenses without prejudice at this time. So long as 

Plaintiff meaningfully participates in his deposition, the Court will not impose 

sanctions against Plaintiff. The Court cautions Plaintiff, however, that another 

refusal to participate in his deposition may result in a dismissal of his case. 

III. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Case 2:14-cv-00108-GEB-BMK Document 34 Filed 05/02/16 Page 4 of 6
5 

In his Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s 

Deposition, Plaintiff “renews [his] motion for appointment of counsel.” (Doc. 32 

at 1.) Plaintiff previously moved for appointment of counsel, which was denied. 

(Doc. 21.) 

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case such as this. 

See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). In certain “exceptional 

circumstances,” the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 

1991). A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the 

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his 

claims on his own in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id. 

Neither factor is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a 

decision. See id. 

In his renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Plaintiff simply 

states that he “request[s] appointment of counsel.” (Motion at 2.) He does not 

provide any argument or explanation for this renewed request. Without more, the 

Court stands by its earlier finding that this case does not meet the “exceptional 

circumstances” requirement. Indeed, Plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient writing 

ability and legal knowledge to articulate his claims, and it does not appear likely that 

Case 2:14-cv-00108-GEB-BMK Document 34 Filed 05/02/16 Page 5 of 6
6 

Plaintiff will succeed on the merits. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s 

renewed request for appointment of counsel. 

CONCLUSION 

In light of the foregoing reasons, the Court (1) DENIES Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Discover Personnel File of Peace Officer (Doc. 29), (2) GRANTS IN 

PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s 

Deposition and to Recover Expenses (Doc. 31), and (3) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 32). The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to 

meaningfully participate in and testify at his deposition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, April 29, 2016 

Horace Thomas v. W. Hanks, 2:14-cv-00108 GEB-BMK, (1) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO DISCOVER PERSONNEL FILE OF PEACE OFFICER (DOC. 29); (2) ORDER 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION AND TO RECOVER EXPENSES (DOC. 31); AND (3) ORDER 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOC. 32). 

 /S/ Barry M. Kurren 

Barry M. Kurren

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:14-cv-00108-GEB-BMK Document 34 Filed 05/02/16 Page 6 of 6