Simmons v. Hedgpeth

Filing 131

ORDER Granting Defendants' Motion to Compel 126 ; Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Stay the Proceedings 125 , and Extending the Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines re 130 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/28/15. Discovery due by 10/28/2015, Dispositive Motions filed by 11/28/2015. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER I. SIMMONS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

GRISSOM, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:07-cv-01058-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO COMPEL, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO STAY THE PROCEEDINGS, AND
EXTENDING THE DISCOVERY AND
DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES
[ECF Nos. 125, 126, 130]

Plaintiff Christopher I. Simmons is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This action is proceeding Defendants Grissom, Keiley, St. Lucia, Ellstrom and Does #1-10

20

(nurses) for deliberate indifference toward Plaintiff’s “heat risk” condition, in violation of the Eighth

21

Amendment, against Defendants Ellstrom, Rients, Sauceda, Akanno and Rufino for deliberate

22

indifference arising from the deprivation of Plaintiff’s pain medication, in violation of the Eighth

23

Amendment, and against Defendants Rients, Akanno, Sauceda, Rufino and Ellstrom for retaliation, in

24

violation of the First Amendment.

25

On July 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay the proceedings. (ECF No. 125.)

26

On July 24, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition. (ECF No. 126.)

27

Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 6, 2015. (ECF No. 127.) Pursuant to court order, Defendants

28
1

1

filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceedings on September 24, 2015. (ECF No. 129.)

2

On September 25, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to modify the scheduling order. (ECF No. 130.)

3

I.

4

DISCUSSION
Defendants’ Motion to Compel/Sanctions

5

A.

6

Defendants contend that Plaintiff refused to attend his deposition. Defendants move to compel

7

Plaintiff’s attendance at this deposition and seek the costs associated with their attempt to depose

8

Plaintiff.

9

Pursuant to the discovery and scheduling order, Defendants are entitled to depose Plaintiff so

10

long as they serve, by mail, a notice in compliance with Rule 30 at least fourteen days before the

11

deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), 30(b)(1). (ECF No. 90.) On July 6, 2015, Defendants timely

12

noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for July 24, 2015, at the California Medical Facility. (ECF No. 126-2,

13

Delgado Decl. ¶ 2.) When defense counsel attempted to depose Plaintiff as scheduled, Plaintiff

14

refused to provide any testimony, or to appear at all. (Id. ¶¶ 3-10.) Defendants now move to compel

15

Plaintiff’s deposition, and that Plaintiff be ordered to reimburse Defendants for the costs associated

16

with the failed deposition, as well as the costs involved in preparing the motion to compel.

17

Defendants further request that the Court modify the scheduling order for the limited purpose of

18

allowing Defendants to take Plaintiff’s deposition.

19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d) provides that the court may order sanctions if a party

20

fails, after being served with proper notice, to appear for their deposition. As a sanction, the court may

21

order the party failing to act to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the

22

failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses

23

unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3). The Court may also dismiss the action as a sanction for a party’s

24

failure to appear at their deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). In support of their motion,

25

Defendants have submitted the declaration of defense counsel. Defense counsel details his attempt to

26

depose Plaintiff and declares as follows:

27
28

2. On July 6, 2015, I served Plaintiff Christopher Simmons with a notice directing him
to appear for a deposition on July 24, 2015. (See Exhibit A.) Plaintiff is an inmate in
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and he is
currently housed at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville. The deposition was
scheduled to take place at 9:00 a.m. at the California Medical Facility.
3. On July 24, 2015, I traveled from the Attorney General’s Office in Sacramento, to
the California Medical Facility (approximately 30 minutes), to depose Plaintiff as
scheduled. Plaintiff did not contact me any time before this date to tell me that he did
not intend to participate in the deposition.
4. After I arrived at the prison and got situated, I waited roughly 25 minutes for
Plaintiff to appear. The stenographer had walked with me to the designated room and
set up her workspace, and she was standing by as well.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

5. At roughly 9:30 a.m., Correctional Officer D. Gibbs came into the room and told us
that Plaintiff was refusing to participate in the deposition. Officer Gibbs had just talked
with Plaintiff, who was on the other side of a locked door.
6. I asked Officer Gibbs if I could speak with Plaintiff, but he said that I was not
allowed on the other side of the door. I asked Officer Gibbs if he would get some
additional information as to why Plaintiff was refusing to attend.
7. Officer Gibbs left the room and came back a few minutes later. He was holding a
copy of Plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings, which was filed on Monday of this
week. (ECF No. 125, filed July 20, 2015.) Officer Gibbs said that Plaintiff was
refusing to attend the deposition based on this document.
8. After recognizing this document as Plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings, I asked
Officer Gibbs if I could speak to Plaintiff from the entrance of the doorway. Gibbs
quickly checked with a supervisor and confirmed that I was not allowed in the holding
area where Plaintiff was sitting. So, I asked Officer Gibbs if he would tell Plaintiff (on
my behalf) that he could not unilaterally cancel the deposition, and that I had not even
had a chance to respond to the stay request, which had only been filed this week. I also
asked Gibbs to tell Plaintiff that I would move for sanctions, including reimbursement
for the costs involved in renoticing the deposition and filing a motion to compel, if
Plaintiff would not appear and testify on July 24 as scheduled. Officer Gibbs left to
relay these messages.
9. About five minutes later, Officer Gibbs returned. He said Plaintiff was firm about
not participating in the deposition on account of being, in Plaintiff’s words, “mentally
sick,” “f***ed up,” and because he “couldn’t think straight.” Plaintiff told Gibbs he
wanted “to go back to [his] housing unit and get [his] meds right.”

25
26
27

10. At that point, I decided that relaying any further messages through Officer Gibbs
would be futile, so I ended the deposition. I told Gibbs I would move to compel
Plaintiff’s participation at a later date, and that he [Officer Gibbs] could release
Plaintiff back to his housing unit. The stenographer and I packed up and left the prison.

28
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

11. I spent 4.75 hours preparing to take Plaintiff’s deposition. This includes the time
spent reviewing various documents from the Court’s electronic docket, including
Plaintiff’s 156-page original complaint, and the time involved in preparing a deposition
outline. I spent another 1.75 hours traveling between the Attorney General’s Office in
Sacramento, and the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, and waiting at the prison.
12. I spent another 3.25 hours preparing the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s
deposition. This includes 2.75 hours drafting the notice of motion and motion, the
supporting memorandum of points and authorities, and this declaration; .25 hours
conferring with my supervisor about the motion; and .25 hours making calls to Phillips
Legal Services, which provided the stenographer for today’s deposition.
13. The Office of the Attorney General’s standard billing rate for legal services
performed for state agencies is $170 per hour. (See Exhibit B.) In total, I have billed
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for 9.75 hours of my time
attempting to depose Plaintiff, at a cost of $1657.50.
14. The Attorney General’s Office incurred another $195 in costs for the stenographer
for today’s failed deposition.
(ECF No. 126-2, Delgado Decl. ¶2-14.)
In his opposition to Defendants’ motion to compel, Plaintiff contends that Defendants have

14

misstated the facts because he did appear for his deposition and provided them with a copy of his

15

motion to stay. Plaintiff contends he is suffering from “thought impairments” which puts him at a

16

greater disadvantage than previously. (ECF No. 127, Opp’n at 2.) Plaintiff concludes that he “is

17

suffering from severe symptoms of trauma, affecting his concentration, attention, memory, intellectual

18

facilities, among others, and seeks the protection of this Court as set forth in his Motion for a Stay of

19

Court Proceedings.” (Id.)

20

The undersigned finds that Plaintiff failed, without good cause, to appear at his properly

21

noticed deposition. While Plaintiff claimed to be suffering from thought impairments and had filed a

22

motion to stay the proceedings, there is no evidence to support Plaintiff’s claim regarding his medical

23

condition. In support of his motion to stay, Plaintiff submits a memorandum, dated July 14, 2015,

24

which notes that Plaintiff is diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Severe, without

25

Psychotic Features for which he is being treated. (ECF No. 125.) Plaintiff also submits medical

26

progress notes, dated February 27, 2015, and March 5, 2015, which are not relevant to the time frame

27

at issue. Plaintiff’s evidence does not demonstrate that he is suffering from a mental or medical

28
4

1

condition for which he is not being treated and which interferes with his ability to prosecute and

2

participate in this action. Thus, there is no excuse for Plaintiff’s failure to participate in the properly

3

noticed deposition.

4

Plaintiff had sufficient notice of the deposition and Plaintiff could have contacted defense

5

counsel anytime by mail or phone to discuss his alleged impairments and the possibility of resetting

6

the matter. Yet, Plaintiff failed to do so. Accordingly, Plaintiff will be compelled to participate in the

7

taking of his deposition after re-notice by Defendants. Plaintiff will also be ordered to pay monetary

8

sanctions. Although Defendants incurred $1,852.50 in costs and attorneys’ fees associated with

9

Plaintiff’s deposition and the motion to compel, Plaintiff is an inmate proceeding in forma pauperis,

10

and given these circumstances, the Court finds the monetary sanction of $896.25 in costs and fees

11

(3.25 hours in preparation of the instant motion to compel, travel time at half the hourly rate, and costs

12

of stenographer) appropriate.

13

Defendants may re-notice Plaintiff’s deposition to take place within forty-five days of the date

14

of this order. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to attend his deposition will result in the dismissal

15

of this action.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay

16

B.

17

Plaintiff seeks an indefinite stay of the proceedings “pending resolution of Plaintiff’s medical

18

condition.” (ECF No. 125.) Plaintiff contends he “is currently suffering from PTSD, affecting his

19

[cognitive] functions, including, but not limited to, abstraction, concentration, attention, intellectual

20

faculties, memory and ability to process information sufficiently to prepare meaningful moving and

21

opposing papers, prepare for trial, discovery and respond to requests by defendants.” (Id. at 2.)

22

Discovery in this action opened in July 2014, and the parties were given eight months to

23

conduct pretrial discovery. (ECF No. 90.) In January 2015, Plaintiff was transferred from the

24

California Medical Facility to Atascadero State Hospital for psychiatric treatment. (ECF Nos. 105,

25

107.) Plaintiff was retained at Atascadero for 49 days, from December 5, 2014, to January 23, 2015.

26

(ECF No. 113, at 2 and n.1.) During this time, Plaintiff was without his legal materials. (Id. at 2.) As

27

a result, the Court modified the scheduling order by extending the discovery deadline and the

28

dispositive motion deadline, each by 60 days. (ECF No. 115.)
5

Then, approximately two months later, Plaintiff was transferred from the California Medical

1
2

Facility to Atascadero a second time. (ECF No. 120.) Plaintiff was again separated from his legal

3

materials for just over 90 days. The Court modified the scheduling order by extending the discovery

4

deadline for an additional 60 days, and the dispositive motion deadline for an extra 50 days. (ECF No.

5

123.)
Defendants do not oppose a short modification of the scheduling order to complete discovery

6
7

and to allow the parties to file dispositive motions. Defendants propose a 30-day extension of the

8

discovery deadline, with a corresponding 30-day extension of the dispositive motion deadline.
As previously stated, in support of his motion to stay, Plaintiff submits a memorandum, dated

9
10

July 14, 2015, which notes that Plaintiff is diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent,

11

Severe, without Psychotic Features for which he is being treated. (ECF No. 125.) Plaintiff also

12

submits medical progress notes, dated February 27, 2015, and March 5, 2015, which are not relevant

13

to the time frame at issue. Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence that calls his competency into

14

question, and he has not demonstrated that the proceedings should be stayed.
On the basis of good cause, the Court will extend the discovery and dispositive motions

15
16

deadlines, each by 30 days.

17

II.

18

ORDER

19

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1.

Defendants’ motion to compel is GRANTED;

21

2.

Defendants may re-notice Plaintiff’s deposition to take place within sixty days of the
date of this order;

22
3.

23
24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

Plaintiff is ordered to pay Defendants $896.25 in fees and costs;

///
6

1

4.

The discovery deadline is extended to October 28, 2015; and

2

5.

The dispositive motion deadline is extended to November 28, 2015.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:

6

September 28, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7