Nicklas v. Kokor et al

Filing 71

ORDER ADOPTING 66 Findings and Recommendations and ORDER DENYING 61 Defendants' Motion for Terminating Sanctions signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/27/2020. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

STEVE ROCKY NICKLAS,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:18-cv-00119-LJO-EPG (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
(ECF Nos. 61 & 66)
W. KOKOR and MS. MATA,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17

Steve Rocky Nicklas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was

19

referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

20

Rule 302.

21

On October 24, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for terminating sanctions on the

22

grounds that Plaintiff failed “to comply with a court order and participate in a deposition.”

23

(ECF No. 61, p. 1). On November 21, 2019, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered

24

findings and recommendations, recommending that:

25
26
27
28

1. Defendants’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions (ECF No. 61) be DENIED;
and
2. Defendants be allowed to continue Plaintiff’s deposition at another date if
they choose to do so, with the following procedures in place:
a. Plaintiff must remain in the deposition until the conclusion and answer
questions to the best of his ability.
1

b. If Plaintiff believes that a question is so objectionable as to not require
an answer, he should explain why he is not answering the question. In
that case, defense counsel should attempt to address Plaintiff’s
concern, or move onto another question.
c. Defendants may move to compel an answer to a question either by
contacting the Court during the deposition or filing a motion to
compel after the deposition.

1
2
3
4
5

(ECF No. 66, p. 9).

6
7
8

The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and
recommendations. The deadline to file objections has passed and no objections have been
filed.

9
10
11
12

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper
analysis.

13

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

14

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on November 21,

15

2019, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

16

2. Defendants’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions (ECF No. 61) is DENIED; and

17

3. Defendants may continue Plaintiff’s deposition at another date if they choose to do

18

so, with the following procedures in place:

19

a. Plaintiff must remain in the deposition until the conclusion and answer

20

questions to the best of his ability.

21

b. If Plaintiff believes that a question is so objectionable as to not require an

22

answer, he should explain why he is not answering the question. In that

23

case, defense counsel should attempt to address Plaintiff’s concern, or move

24
25
26
27

onto another question.
///
///
///

28
2

1

c. Defendants may move to compel an answer to a question either by

2

contacting the Court during the deposition or filing a motion to compel after

3

the deposition.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

January 27, 2020

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3