White v. Smyers et al

Filing 162

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 8/5/15 ORDERING that Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement, ECF No. 158 , construed as a further request for protective order precluding plaintiffs further deposition, is DENIED, for the reasons previo usly stated by the court, see ECF No. 153 at 5-8, 9. Subject to the conditions previously established by the court, see id. at 7-8, defendants shall together schedule plaintiffs further deposition on one day between August 31, 2015 and October 16, 2015, and shall inform the court of such date within five days of its scheduling.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WALTER HOWARD WHITE,

No. 2:12-cv-2868 MCE AC P

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER

SMYERS, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

Plaintiff has filed a “Supplemental Statement to Court’s Order of April 23, 2015,” again

18

seeking to stay his further deposition. See ECF No. 158. Plaintiff again asserts that his “urgent

19

medical needs” preclude reconvening his deposition. This court previously considered plaintiff’s

20

medical needs and side effects to medications, together with his other allegations, as a motion for

21

protective order to deny or postpone his further deposition, and denied the motion. For the

22

reasons previously stated, see ECF No. 153 at 5-8, the court will not revisit these matters, which

23

have been repeatedly and thoroughly addressed.1

24
25
26
27
28

1

As this court has previously noted, plaintiff’s lengthy and numerous typed filings
controvert his complaints of spinal pain so severe as to preclude his further deposition. The
preliminary injunctive relief that plaintiff now seeks – that defendants provide plaintiff with
necessary medical care, including surgery, prior to reconvening his deposition – is inconsistent
with the reasonable inference drawn from plaintiff’s copious, cogent and typed filings that he is
capable of extended concentration and maintaining an upright posture. Plaintiff’s current demand
for surgery is premature as it mirrors his request for permanent injunctive relief should he prevail
on the merits of this action. Moreover, as the court has repeatedly noted, numerous
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Plaintiff’s “Supplemental Statement,” ECF No. 158, construed as a further request for

3

protective order precluding plaintiff’s further deposition, is DENIED, for the reasons previously

4

stated by the court, see ECF No. 153 at 5-8, 9.

5

2. Subject to the conditions previously established by the court, see id. at 7-8, defendants

6

shall together schedule plaintiff’s further deposition on one day between August 31, 2015 and

7

October 16, 2015, and shall inform the court of such date within five days of its scheduling.

8

DATED: August 5, 2015

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

accommodations were previously made to support plaintiff’s medical and medication needs
during his initial deposition, and such accommodations remain available to plaintiff when he
participates in his further deposition. See ECF No. 153 at 7-8.
2