Christopher Lipsey, Jr. v. Depovic et al

Filing 77

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 65 69 70 72 74 Motion for Joint Deposition, Stay of Deposition, Subpoena, In Camera Review, Emergency Protective Order, and Additional Discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 02/07/2022. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR.,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
DR. DEPOVIC AND DR. GREWALL,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00767-JLT-HBK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR JOINT DEPOSITION, STAY OF
DEPOSITION, SUBPOENA, IN CAMERA
REVIEW, EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE
ORDER, AND ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
(Doc. Nos. 65, 69, 70, 72, and 74)

16
17

Christopher Lipsey, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court are

19

Plaintiff’s motion for a joint deposition and an emergency stay of the deposition; motion for a

20

subpoena and in camera review; motion for an in camera review; motion for an emergency

21

protective order; and a motion for additional discovery. (See Doc. Nos. 65, 69, 70, 72, and 74).

22

Defendants filed responses in opposition to the motions. (See Doc. Nos. 66 and 75).

23

On February 4, 2022, the undersigned held a telephonic hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for a

24

joint deposition and an emergency stay of the deposition; motion for a subpoena and in camera

25

review; motion for an in camera review; motion for an emergency protective order; and motion

26

for additional discovery. Plaintiff was provided notice and an opportunity to attend but did not

27

attend. “The litigation coordinator notified the court that Plaintiff would not appear for the

28

conference because the Plaintiff, who is in custody, was refusing to leave his cell.”. (Doc. No.

1

76). Plaintiff previously refused to attend another telephonic discovery conferences. (See Doc.

2

No. 51). For the reasons below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motions.

3

APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS

4

A. Motion for a joint deposition and a stay of the deposition

5

On January 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a joint deposition and an

6

emergency stay of Plaintiff’s properly noticed scheduled deposition.1 (Doc. No. 65). Defendants

7

filed their response in opposition on January 18, 2022. (Doc. No. 66).
Plaintiff’s instant motion was based on the belief that his deposition was scheduled for

8
9

January 18, 2022, and he needed more time to prepare his objections to potential questions and to

10

determine if his rules violation report is privileged. (See Doc. No. 65 at 1-2). Defendants argue

11

Plaintiff has no justification to seek a stay of the properly noticed deposition since he had

12

adequate time to research his objections and whether or not his rules violation report is privileged.

13

(See Doc. No. 66 at 2). Defendants also oppose Plaintiff’s request for a joint deposition because

14

Plaintiff did not provide any assurance that he will comply with Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of

15

Civil Procedure and bear the costs for recording the Defendants’ deposition testimony. (Id. at 2).

16

Finally, Defendants advise that Plaintiff’s deposition was scheduled for February 8, 2022, not

17

January 18, 2022. (Id. at 1).

18

In forma pauperis relief is governed and limited by 28 U.S.C § 1915. Inmates have a

19

constitutional right of access to the courts; however, an inmate’s constitutional right of access to

20

the courts does not impose “affirmative obligations on the States to finance and support prisoner

21

litigation.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 384 (1996). In forma pauperis status does not entitle a

22

plaintiff to a waiver of costs associated with depositions and other costs required to litigate a

23

claim. Love v. Brewer, 2021 WL 1022702, *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2021);see also Tedder v. Odel,

24

F.2d 210, 211-212 (9th Cir. 1989)(holding that 28 U.S.C § 1915 does not authorize a waiver of

25

witness fees that are tendered with subpoenas). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the

26

party that is taking the deposition to bear the costs of the recording. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3).

27
1

28

Plaintiff incorrectly asserted that he was scheduled to be deposed on January 18, 2022 by the Defendants.
(See Doc. No. 65 at 1). The Deposition is scheduled for February 8, 2022. (See Doc. No. 66 at 1).

2

1

In Tedder v. Odel, the appellant, a pro se and in forma pauperis plaintiff, mailed a

2

subpoena that did not have the necessary witness and mileage fees attached to the appellee. 890

3

F.2d at 211. Appellee received advice that service of the subpoena was improper and therefore

4

did not appear at trial. Id. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees

5

and held that the appellee’s failure to appear was not a basis for any liability. Id. at 210-211.

6

Appellant argued that the subpoena was not deficient because he was an in forma pauperis

7

plaintiff and exempted from the fee requirements. Id. at 211. The Ninth Circuit rejected

8

appellant’s argument, ruling that 28 U.S.C § 1915 does not authorize a waiver of witness fees that

9

are tendered with subpoenas. Id. at 211-212;see also Dixon v. Yist, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir.

10
11

1993).
Plaintiff is not entitled to a joint deposition. If Plaintiff desires to depose the Defendants,

12

then Plaintiff must pay the costs for recording the Defendants’ depositions as required by Rule

13

30(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As ruled by the United States Supreme Court in

14

Lewis v. Casey, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Tedder, and this Court in Love, Plaintiff’s

15

in forma pauperis status does not authorize the waiver of any fees associated with recording

16

Defendants’ depositions. Plaintiff has other means available, such as filing interrogatories, to

17

obtain the information he would seek by deposing the Defendants. Plaintiff’s request to stay the

18

deposition is also denied. With nearly a month to prepare objections, there is no cause to issue a

19

stay in Plaintiff’s deposition.

20

B. Request for a subpoena

21

On January 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting this Court issue a subpoena to the

22

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations for “grievances/complaints by prisoners

23

and/or citizens, fellow employees, employers, etc., relating to dereliction of duty, medical

24

malpractice (direction related to medication) and/or misconduct that would support an inference

25

of low moral, [sic] including; but not limited to criminal arrest (and/or conviction)” that were

26

filed against the Defendants. (See Doc. No. 69 at 2-3). Plaintiff also requested a subpoena for

27

“Health Care Department Operations Manual (HC) (DOM); California Correctional Health Care

28

Services (CCHCS), Inmate Medical Services Polices and Procedures; Mental Health Services
3

1

Delivery System (MHSDS) Program Guide; Correctional Treatment Center Policy Manual;

2

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations (CDCR) Custody DOM Chapter one

3

Articles 18, 20 and Article 30, Chapter 5 Article 8, Chapter 8, Articles 40, 42 and 51 and Chapter

4

9 Article 2; 1824 Desk Reference Manual; Any studies, records, book(s) and documents

5

defendants intend on using or which their experts intend on using at the summary judgment

6

phase/stage and/or trial.” (See Doc. No. 69 at 3-4). Defendants filed their opposition to the

7

subpoena on January 31, 2022. (Doc. No. 75).

8
9

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s subpoena request was untimely, does not properly state
why the records cannot be produced through other means, is requesting privileged material, and is

10

not relevant. (See Doc. No. 75 at 3-5). Defendants provided Plaintiff with the requested

11

healthcare directive and a section of the department of operations manual regulation making the

12

Plaintiff’s subpoena request partially moot. (See Doc. No. 75 at 4). Furthermore, tied to

13

Plaintiff’s subpoena request was a request for this Court to conduct an in camera review of any

14

discovery produced by the subpoena. (Doc. No. 75).

15

Rule 45 governs the issuance of subpoenas, including serving a subpoena on entities that

16

are not a party to a lawsuit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. A plaintiff is entitled to the issuance of a

17

subpoena commanding the production of documents from non-parties; however, such a request

18

will only be grated “if the documents sought from the non-party are not equally available to

19

plaintiff and are not obtainable from defendants through a request for production of documents.”

20

Jeffery v. Bennge, 2008 WL 4584786, *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2008). Finally, parties must disclose

21

the identity of any expert witness it may use at trial and other material related to the expert

22

witness such as the basis and reason for an expert witness’ opinion and facts or data the expert

23

witness considered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(2)(B).

24

The Court denies Plaintiff’s subpoena request for the “grievances/complaints by prisoners

25

and/or citizens, fellow employees, employers, etc., relating to dereliction of duty, medical

26

malpractice (direction related to medication) and/or misconduct that would support an inference

27

of low moral, [sic] including; but not limited to criminal arrest (and/or conviction)” filed against

28

the Defendants. Plaintiff’s request does not comply with Rule 45 because Defendant, Dr.
4

1

Depovic, is still employed by the California State Prison. As a result, Plaintiff’s requested

2

documents can be obtained by one of the Defendants who is a party to this case. Plaintiff has

3

alternative remedies, such as a motion to compel, if Plaintiff cannot obtain the requested material.

4

Assuming arguendo that Plaintiff’s subpoena request complied with Rule 45, Plaintiff’s

5

subpoena request would nevertheless be denied for being overly broad. Plaintiff does not

6

establish any dates limiting the scope of his subpoena request for complaints and grievances that

7

were filed against each Defendant during the course of their work. (Doc. No. 69).

8

broad to require the Defendants to produce all grievances and complaints filed against them

9

during their entire careers. This Court cautions Plaintiff that he should tailor the scope of his

10

It is overly

discovery request to dates within a narrower time span more relative to his complaint.

11

Finally, Plaintiff’s subpoena request also requested information related to expert

12

witnesses. The discovery period for this case has not closed and this Court has every reason to

13

believe the Defendants understand their obligations under Rule 26(2) of the Federal Rules of

14

Civil Procedure. If the Defendants may use an expert witness at trial, this Court has no doubt that

15

Defendants will disclose all required information for expert witness testimony under Rule 26(2)

16

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

17
18
19
20

Because the Court denies Plaintiff’s subpoena request, his request for an in camera review
is moot. At this time, there are no documents for this Court to review.
C. Request for an “emergency” protective order
On January 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed an “emergency” request for a protective order. (Doc.

21

No. 72). On January 27, 2022, this Court issued a minute order informing the parties that it did

22

not deem Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order an “emergency” but would take up the matter

23

via an informal discovery teleconference on February 4, 2022. (Doc. No. 73). Defendants filed

24

their opposition on January 31, 2022. (Doc. No. 75).

25

Plaintiff requested that the Court issue a protective order that would essentially limit the

26

Defendants’ inquiry into Plaintiff’s rules violation which is also the subject of his complaint.

27

(See Doc. No. 72 at 2-3 and Doc No. 14). Specifically, Plaintiff asks the Court to require the

28

Defendants to produce copies of Plaintiff’s medical records and rules violation report prior to
5

1

Plaintiff’s deposition which is scheduled for February 8, 2022. (See Doc. No. 72 at 2-3).

2

Defendant’s opposed Plaintiff’s request for a protective order and argued that Plaintiff’s request

3

for copies of his medical records and the rules violation report is moot because counsel for the

4

Defendants mailed Plaintiff a copy of the requested records on January 28, 2022. (See Doc. No.

5

75 at 5). Defendants also argue that Plaintiff waived any privilege associated with his medical

6

records and psychological records because those records directly relate to the issues that are in

7

dispute. (See Doc. No. 75 at 6).

8

A party is authorized to move for a protective order and must show the court good cause

9

for issuing a protective order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). To show good cause, the party seeking the

10

protective order must show the specific prejudice or harm that will be the consequence of not

11

granting a protective order. Philips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corps. 307 F.3d

12

1206, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 2002) (quotation and citations omitted). See also Beckman Indus., Inc. v.

13

International Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470,476 (9thCir. 1992)(holding that the Rule 26(c) test is not met

14

when a party makes broad allegations of harm that are unsubstantiated by specific examples or

15

articulated reasoning). Protective orders may be issued in order to forbid certain disclosures or

16

discovery, forbid a party from inquiring into certain matters, or to limit the scope of the disclosure

17

or discovery of a certain matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(D).

18

Finally, during the course of a deposition, a party can object to evidence, a question, or any other

19

aspect of the deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2). A party’s objection will be noted in the record

20

but the examination will continue and the question will still be answered. Id. (emphasis

21

added).

22

On January 28, 2022, Defendant provided Plaintiff with the exact medical records and

23

rules violation report that Plaintiff requested therefore making Plaintiff’s request for a protective

24

order to obtain such discovery prior to his deposition moot. (Doc. No. 75). Plaintiff’s request for

25

a protective order also hinges on his responses to questions about rules violations being used

26

against him. (Doc. No. 72). Plaintiff’s request for a protective order alleges the exact broad

27

allegations of harm the Ninth Circuit sought to prevent in Phillips. Plaintiff does not provide

28

specific details on what harm he will experience if he answers questions pertaining to any rules
6

1

violations he may have committed but generally states that his responses “can be used him…”

2

(See Doc. No. 72 at 3). Furthermore, Plaintiff’s complaint makes a particular rules violation the

3

subject of this litigation and is therefore ripe for questioning at the upcoming deposition. (Doc.

4

No. 14). Plaintiff has more appropriate remedies than a protective order within the Federal Rules

5

of Civil Procedure if Plaintiff believes Counsel for the Defendants’ deposition questions are

6

objectionable. In accordance with Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff

7

merely needs to state his objection to the question for the record, but then must answer the

8

question (barring any other limitations in Rule 30). This Court will follow the Federal Rules of

9

Civil Procedure and rule on any objections made at the deposition at the appropriate time in the

10

litigation process as appropriate.

11

D. Request for additional discovery

12

On January 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting additional discovery, which was

13

actually a request for leave from the Court to file additional interrogatories. (Doc. No. 74).

14

Defendant’s opposed Plaintiff’s motion and filed their response on January 31, 2022. (Doc. No.

15

75). Plaintiff argues he is entitled to an additional interrogatory for each time the Defendants

16

responded to any interrogatory with a baseless objection or were non-responsive. (See Doc. No.

17

74 at 1-3). Defendants objected on the grounds that Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery with

18

Defendant Dr. Depovic was never properly filed with the court despite Counsel for the

19

Defendants informing Plaintiff of the error. (See Doc. No. 75 at 6-7). Defendants also objected

20

on the grounds that Plaintiff has filed numerous discovery requests. (See Doc. No. 75 at 7).

21

“Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party

22

no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1).

23

The court may grant leave to serve additional interrogatories that are consistent with Rule

24

26(b)(1) and (2). Id. The interrogatories must be answered; however, the responding party may

25

object to an interrogatory. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b). The responding party must state with specificity

26

its grounds for objecting. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). A plaintiff, even a pro se, in forma pauperis

27

plaintiff, must make some showing for why the court should grant a request for additional

28

interrogatories. Eichler v. Titlon, 2010 WL 457334, *1 (E. D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2010).
7

1

In Eichler, the plaintiff was a pro se and in forma pauperis state prisoner that brought a

2

civil rights action suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at *1. Plaintiff sought leave from the

3

court to file additional interrogatories which the defendants opposed on the grounds that plaintiff

4

failed to show good cause, as required by Rule 26(b)(1). Id. In Eichler, the court explained that

5

the plaintiff must make some showing of cause for the reason the plaintiff requested additional

6

interrogatories. Id. The plaintiff did not provide any reason with his request for additional

7

interrogatories. Id. The plaintiff also did not explain what information he was requesting with

8

the additional interrogatories. Id. As a result, the Eichler court denied the plaintiff’s request for

9

additional interrogatories. Id.

10

Plaintiff’s request for additional interrogatories as a remedy for Defendants’ purported

11

baseless objections and non-responsive answers to his interrogatories is similar to the facts found

12

in Eichler. This case has a pro se, in forma pauperis plaintiff. Despite Plaintiff’s status, and

13

following the Eichler court’s decision, he still must show cause to the Court to be granted

14

additional interrogatories. Here, the Plaintiff has not made some showing for cause for this Court

15

to grant his requested relief. Plaintiff did not provide any attachments to support his motion and

16

Plaintiff does not show the Court how the Defendants objections were baseless or their answers

17

were unresponsive. Plaintiff also does not explain what information he will request with the

18

additional interrogatories. Absent a showing for cause, Plaintiff’s motion for additional

19

interrogatories is denied.

20

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

21

1. Plaintiff’s request for a joint deposition and a stay of his deposition (Doc No. 65) is

22
23
24

DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s request for a subpoena and an in camera review (Doc. No. 69 and Doc. No.
70) is DENIED.

25

3. Plaintiff’s request for a protective order (Doc. No. 72) is DENIED.

26

4. Plaintiff’s request for additional discovery (Doc. No. 74) is DENIED.

27
28
8

1
2

Dated:

February 7, 2022
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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
9