Bradford v. Marchak

Filing 320

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(C) 316 ; ORDER REQUIRING Response From Defendants Within Fourteen (14) Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/4/2018. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD,
9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
M. MARCHAK, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01689-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER PURSUANT TO FED. R.
CIV. P. 26(C)
[Doc. 316]
ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE FROM
DEFENDANTS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS

Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule

18
19

of Civil Procedure 26(c) and declaration in support, filed on April 27, 2018. (Doc. 316.)

20

I.

21
22

Background
As the parties are aware of the lengthy history of this matter, the Court will only briefly

summarize the pertinent background regarding this motion.

23

On January 12, 2018, Defendants served a notice of Deposition and Request for Production of

24

Documents on Plaintiff. (Wilson Decl. & Ex. A, Notice of Deposition, Doc. 197-2, 1-12.) On January

25

22, 2018, Plaintiff filed an objection that health matters prevented him from sitting through a

26

deposition; specifically, due to colitis flare-ups. (Doc. 136.) The parties met and conferred, and agreed

27

that Plaintiff’s deposition would take place on January 29, 2018, at the R.J. Donovan Correctional

28

Facility in San Diego, California, where Plaintiff is housed. As discussed in this Court’s April 16,
1

1

2018 order, Plaintiff failed to cooperate in his deposition, which lasted only a minute or a few minutes,

2

causing defense counsel to incur significant costs and expenses travelling and preparing for the

3

deposition. (Doc. 287.) Defendants filed a motion to compel and for sanctions, including terminating

4

sanctions, based on Plaintiff’s refusal to participate in discovery. (Doc. 197.)
The Court issued an order on April 16, 2018, finding that Plaintiff willfully refused to be

5
6

deposed, impeding this litigation. The Court declined to recommend sanctions at that juncture, but

7

required that Plaintiff attend his deposition, to take place on a single day, and to be limited to seven (7)

8

hours, with reasonable breaks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). The parties were ordered to meet and confer

9

and agree on a date for Plaintiff’s deposition, to be taken on or before June 18, 2018.

10
11

II.

Motion for Protective Order
Now, as stated above, Plaintiff has filed a motion for protective order, pursuant to Federal Rule

12

of Civil Procedure 26(c). Plaintiff asserts that he his colitis flare-ups, incontinence, and leg ulcers

13

prevent him from sitting in his deposition for any length of time beyond a few minutes. Therefore, he

14

seeks to be given two weeks, or fourteen (14) days, to complete the deposition, allowing him to

15

maintain his regular schedule of medical treatments, lunches, bathroom breaks, and other matters,

16

while being deposed. Plaintiff also declares that he does not believe any deposition of him is

17

necessary, and that “even with 10 depositions it will not change the outcome nor the facts in the

18

record.” (Pls.’ Decl., Doc. 316, at 6 ¶1.)

19

The Court does not find good cause to grant Plaintiff’s request, or to otherwise excuse him

20

from being deposed. His request that his deposition occur over a fourteen-day period is excessive and

21

unduly burdensome. Plaintiff has declared that he wears diapers and needs breaks for changing them,

22

and may necessitate leg elevation due to circulation issues or swelling. The Court finds that reasonable

23

accommodations can be made for Plaintiff’s health issues, meals, and bathroom breaks in the ordinary

24

course of conducting a single-day deposition. If the parties find themselves unable to complete a

25

single-day deposition in good faith, they may agree to reasonably extend the time, or seek court

26

intervention if necessary. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). Plaintiff is required under the rules to submit

27

to a deposition.

28
2

Accordingly, the Court again directs the parties to meet and confer to schedule Plaintiff’s

1
2

deposition to be taken on or before June 18, 2018. Defendants shall inform the Court within fourteen

3

(14) days whether the parties were able to come to an agreement and schedule Plaintiff’s deposition,

4

or whether the Court should consider sanctions in this matter, including terminating sanctions.

5

III.

Conclusion

6

For the reasons explained above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

7

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order, filed on April 27, 2018 (Doc. 316), is denied;

8

2.

The parties shall meet and confer to schedule Plaintiff’s deposition to be taken on or
before June 18, 2018; and

9
10

3.

Defendants shall inform the Court within fourteen (14) days whether the parties were

11

able to come to an agreement and schedule Plaintiff’s deposition, or whether the Court

12

should consider sanctions in this matter.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

May 4, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3