Walker v. Kernan et al

Filing 66

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 03/01/21 DENYING 60 Motion to vacate and stay the deposition. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 G. DANIEL WALKER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:17-cv-1764 KJM DB P v. ORDER SCOTT KERNAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action seeking relief under 17 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendants conspired to retaliate against him because he 19 named them as defendants in prior lawsuits. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to 20 vacate and/or stay the deposition. (ECF No. 60.) For the reasons set forth below, the court will 21 deny plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to vacate and stay the deposition noticed for March 4, 22 23 2021. (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff alleged that he does not have access to all the documents he needs 24 to bring to the deposition, he was concerned that leaving his cell and reporting to the designated 25 room where he is to participate in the deposition via videoconferencing would put him at an 26 undue risk of contracting COVID-19, and his hearing issues prevent him from meaningfully 27 participating in the deposition. 28 //// 1 The court directed defendants to file a response to plaintiff’s motion addressing the 1 2 concerns outlined above. (ECF No. 64.) Defendants have submitted an opposition to plaintiff’s 3 motion. (ECF No. 65.) Therein, counsel for defendants states that plaintiff has been advised that 4 he has legal property in storage, he can get any items he needs by asking for his property to be 5 brought over, going through the boxes, and exchanging documents he needs with those that he 6 does not need for the deposition. (Id. at 3-4.) Counsel further stated that during a recent 7 telephone call with plaintiff, plaintiff refused to give counsel a list of the documents plaintiff 8 needs because plaintiff had already placed a list of such documents in the mail. (Id. at 3.) 9 Counsel also contacted California Health Care Facility (CHCF), where plaintiff is 10 currently housed, regarding the spread of the COVID-19 virus. (Id. at 4.) Counsel was advised 11 that as of February 25, 2021, there are five inmates with COVID-19 at CHCF. Those inmates are 12 quarantined, and plaintiff will not come into contact with them as he is escorted from his cell to 13 the videoconference room. 14 Counsel further confirmed that plaintiff has access to a pocket talker that allows him to 15 amplify volume and effectively communicate with others. (Id.) Counsel stated that plaintiff was 16 able to adequately communicate with counsel over the phone and with Magistrate Judge Delaney 17 during the settlement conference that took place via videoconferencing on November 3, 2020. Counsel’s declaration (ECF No. 65 at 3-4), shows that reasonable precautions have been 18 19 taken to minimize risks associated with the COVID-19 to plaintiff. Additionally, counsel has 20 confirmed that plaintiff’s hearing issues have been sufficiently accommodated to ensure he will 21 be able to meaningfully communicate during the deposition. Finally, defendants indicate that 22 plaintiff has been advised that he can access the legal materials in storage by making a request 23 and exchanging documents needed for the deposition for those he does not need for the 24 deposition. In light of the representations made in defendants’ opposition, the court finds no 25 reason to vacate the deposition. Plaintiff is advised that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 require him to attend and meaningfully participate in his deposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30, 37. 27 //// 28 //// 2 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to vacate and stay the 2 deposition (ECF No. 60) is denied. 3 Dated: March 1, 2021 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 DB:12 DB:1/Orders/Prisoner/Civil.Rights/walk1764.depo.stay 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?