Bell v. Lee et al

Filing 33

ORDER ON DISCOVERY AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS 29 31 20 25 27 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/20/2015)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

VINCENT KEITH BELL,

9

Plaintiff,

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 13-5820 SI (pr)
ORDER ON DISCOVERY AND
MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS

v.

11

KEN LEE, Deputy; et al.,

12

Defendants.
/

13
14

Vincent Keith Bell, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this pro se civil

15

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining of conditions of confinement at the jail. The

16

court found that the amended complaint (Docket # 5) stated cognizable § 1983 claims against

17

several defendants for excessive force, retaliation and denial of due process in disciplinary

18

proceedings. This action is now before the court for consideration of several discovery and

19

miscellaneous matters.

20
21

A.

Discovery Motions

22

The parties have several discovery disputes. Plaintiff has moved to compel production

23

of videotape relating to the use-of-force incident (Docket # 27); defendants have moved for a

24

protective order barring plaintiff from taking the depositions of several defendants based on

25

inadequate notice (Docket # 25); and defendants have moved to compel plaintiff's deposition

26

(Docket # 29).

27

The court generally is not involved in the discovery process and only becomes involved

28

when there is a dispute between the parties about discovery responses. Discovery requests and
responses normally are exchanged between the parties without any copy sent to the court.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) (listing discovery requests and responses that "must not" be filed with

2

the court until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders otherwise). Only when the

3

parties have a discovery dispute that they cannot resolve among themselves should the parties

4

even consider asking the court to intervene in the discovery process. The court does not have

5

enough time or resources to oversee all discovery, and therefore requires that the parties present

6

to it only their very specific disagreements. To promote the goal of addressing only very

7

specific disagreements (rather than becoming an overseer of all discovery), the court requires

8

that the parties meet and confer to try to resolve their disagreements before seeking court

9

intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a); N. D. Cal. Local Rule 37. Where, as here, one of the

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

parties is a prisoner, the court does not require in-person meetings and instead allows the

11

prisoner and defense counsel to meet and confer by telephone or exchange of letters. Although

12

the format of the meet-and-confer process changes, the substance of the rule remains the same:

13

the parties must engage in a good faith effort to meet and confer before seeking court

14

intervention in any discovery dispute.

15

Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Disclosure of Video Recordings: Plaintiff has moved to

16

compel "exculpatory video footage as requested." Docket # 27 at 1. Defendants have opposed

17

the motion, stating that (a) they produced 157 pages of documents and three videos on a DVD

18

of the incident, (b) there are no other video recordings of which they are aware, and © plaintiff

19

has not met and conferred regarding the alleged deficiencies in defendants' production. Docket

20

# 28-1 at 2. Plaintiff has not filed a reply.

21

The motion to compel disclosure of video recordings is DENIED. Docket # 27. First,

22

plaintiff has not disputed defendants' assertion that they provided him with a DVD containing

23

videos relating to the incident, and has not identified what other recordings defendants have

24

failed to produce. Defendants are not obligated to provide plaintiff with a DVD player or other

25

means to watch the videos they have produced. Second, plaintiff failed to engage in the required

26

good faith efforts to meet and confer to attempt to resolve this discovery dispute before filing

27

his motion to compel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a); N. D. Cal. Local Rule 37.

28
2

Defendants' Motion For A Protective Order: Defendants have moved for a protective

2

order barring plaintiff from taking their "unreasonably noticed depositions." Docket # 25 at 2.

3

Defendants protest that they only received four days' notice because plaintiff's notice of

4

depositions was mailed on June 11, received by defense counsel on June 15, and scheduled the

5

depositions for June 19, 2015. Defendants further protest that plaintiff failed to consult with

6

defense counsel regarding scheduling, as required by a local rule. See N. D. Cal. Local Rule 30-

7

1 ("For the convenience of witnesses, counsel and parties, before noticing a deposition of a party

8

or witness affiliated with a party, the noticing party must confer about the scheduling of the

9

deposition with opposing counsel or, if the party is pro se, the party.") Defendants also state,

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

without contradiction, that defense counsel wrote a letter to plaintiff in an attempt to meet and

11

confer regarding the scheduling of the requested depositions and contacted plaintiff's criminal

12

defense attorney to convey their concerns. Plaintiff did not withdraw the notice of depositions.

13

Upon a showing of good cause, the court may limit discovery by issuing "an order to

14

protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or

15

expense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b) requires that

16

"reasonable written notice" be provided to every other party for a deposition, but does not define

17

the amount of time considered to be reasonable notice. Courts have found that a week to ten

18

days' notice of a deposition generally is considered reasonable notice if documents are not

19

requested, although the particular circumstances of a case may shorten or lengthen the amount

20

of notice that is considered reasonable. See Reddy v. Precyse Solutions LLC, 2015 WL 2081429

21

(E.D. Cal. 20150); see also Paige v. Consumer Programs, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 272, 275 (C. D. Cal.

22

2008) (14 days' notice reasonable); In re. Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litigation, 231 F.R.D. 320, 327

23

(N.D. Ill. 2005) ("ten business days' notice would seem reasonable," but not where the case was

24

exceedingly complex, the case was near to the discovery cut-off, and the schedules of deponents

25

and attorneys would be unable to accommodate the requested dates). When, as here, the notice

26

of deposition requests documents to be produced at the deposition, the noticing party must

27

comply with Rule 34's limits for productions of document and therefore must give 30 days'

28

notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A).
3

1

Good cause having been shown, defendants' motion for a protective order is GRANTED.

2

Docket # 25. Plaintiff did not provide the reasonable notice of the depositions required by

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1) when, without any effort to coordinate the scheduling

4

of the depositions with defense counsel, he mailed a notice of the depositions with document

5

production requirements ten days before the deposition date, and the notice was received by

6

defense counsel four days before the deposition date.1 Although the scheduled deposition date

7

has passed, the court now orders that plaintiff may not take the depositions of the defendants

8

unless and until he first meets and confers with defense counsel to select mutually convenient

9

dates for such depositions and then sends a letter to defense counsel identifying the deposition

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

dates, as described in Section C of this order.

11

As in many cases where there is an incarcerated pro se litigant, the court is concerned that

12

the litigant does not understand the need for advance planning of depositions and the need to

13

tend to the costs of such depositions. The court therefore will impose some requirements to

14

avoid the possibility of a deponent appearing for a deposition that plaintiff – who is incarcerated

15

and has very limited funds -- is unable to conduct. Plaintiff must confirm the following in a letter

16

sent to defense counsel at least four days before the date set for each deposition: (1) that plaintiff

17

has hired a court reporter/stenographer who is ready, willing and able to report the deposition;

18

and (2) that plaintiff has obtained permission from jail officials to conduct the deposition on the

19

date and time he has selected. If defense counsel has not received that written confirmation from

20

plaintiff at least two days before the date set for each deposition, the deponent and defense

21

counsel need not appear for the scheduled deposition and may instead timely notify plaintiff of

22

their non-appearance.

23

Defendants' Motion To Compel Plaintiff's Deposition: Defendants have moved to compel

24

plaintiff's deposition. Docket # 29. Defense counsel served a notice of deposition on plaintiff

25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff also scheduled all seven defendants' depositions to occur at the same place and time.
Unless plaintiff was planning very short depositions, it was unreasonable for him to set all seven
depositions for the same time because that would have entailed a lot of wasted time for defendants who
would have had to wait for the depositions of other defendants to conclude. In the future, plaintiff
should schedule each defendant's deposition for a particular time so that a prospective deponent does
not have to wait an unreasonable time for his or her deposition to start.
4

on May 20, 2015, scheduling his deposition for June 19, 2015.2 Plaintiff did not serve any

2

objections. In order to accommodate the schedule of plaintiff's criminal defense attorney, the

3

deposition was rescheduled to June 26, 2015. On June 24, plaintiff notified defense counsel by

4

telephone that he would refuse to be deposed on June 26. Plaintiff later argued that he was

5

unprepared because he was unable to review discovery produced by defendants in April 2015

6

(i.e., the 157 pages of documents and 3 video clips, discussed earlier) and proposed a new

7

deposition date in 30 days. Defendants believed plaintiffs' proposal to be unreasonable because

8

their dispositive motion deadline was August 1, 2015. On June 26, 2015, defense counsel

9

arrived with a court reporter to conduct plaintiff's deposition. Plaintiff refused to attend the

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

deposition. His criminal defense attorney, who was present, indicated that plaintiff was likely

11

to persist in his refusal to testify because he had not yet been able to view the video that

12

defendants had produced.

13

Upon due consideration, defendants' motion to compel plaintiff's deposition is

14

GRANTED. Docket # 29. Defendants may conduct the deposition of plaintiff on or before

15

August 20, 2015. Plaintiff must appear and testify at his deposition regardless of whether he

16

has had an opportunity to view the video evidence defendants have produced to him, regardless

17

of whether he has read all the documents defendants have produced to him, and regardless of any

18

outstanding discovery requests to defendants. Plaintiff is further informed that he has no right

19

to take the deposition of any defendant before his deposition occurs.

20

Sanctions:

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d), a party may be subject to

21

dismissal or lesser sanctions if the party fails, after being served with proper notice, to appear

22

for that person's deposition. And under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b), once the court

23

orders a deponent to be sworn or to answer a question and the deponent fails to obey, that failure

24

"may be treated as contempt of court." The sanctions that may be imposed on a party for failing

25
26
2

27
28

Defendants earlier had scheduled plaintiff's deposition for May 20, 2015. On May 20, defense
counsel arrived with a court reporter, but plaintiff refused to be deposed because, according to plaintiff,
he had not been served with the deposition notice. Defendants were unable to prove that he had
received notice of the May 20, 2015 deposition and therefore re-noticed his deposition for June 19,
2015.
5

1

to appear for a deposition or for disobeying a court order a deponent to be sworn and/or answer

2

questions, include the following: the disobedient party may be prohibited "from supporting or

3

opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence,"

4

pleadings may be stricken, and the action may be dismissed in whole or in part. See Fed. R. Civ.

5

P. 37(b)(2)(A). The disobedient party also may be ordered to pay "the reasonable expenses,

6

including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or

7

other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).
Defendants request that the court impose sanctions on plaintiff due to plaintiff's failure

9

to attend his deposition. Defendants specifically request that the court impose the sanction of

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

staying this action until plaintiff is deposed. See Docket # 29 at 5 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.

11

37(b)(2)(A)(iv)). This proposed sanction is unnecessary under the circumstances of this case:

12

the court will simply readjust the briefing schedule to give defendants time to depose plaintiff.

13

This proposed sanction also might be less likely to cause plaintiff to promptly comply with his

14

duty to appear for and testify at his deposition. Therefore, the sanction of a stay will not be

15

imposed, but the court is fully prepared to impose sanctions for any further refusal to respond

16

to properly propounded discovery or failure to be deposed.

17

Plaintiff is now warned that he may be sanctioned if he does not appear at his

18

deposition and/or testify at that deposition. The sanctions that may be imposed include, without

19

limitation, the dismissal of some or all of plaintiff's claims, an order prohibiting him from

20

supporting his claims with any evidence (including testimony or declarations), and monetary

21

sanctions.

22

Fifth Amendment: Defendants' filings indicate that plaintiff's criminal defense attorney

23

has been consulted because she wants to be sure he does not inadvertently waive his Fifth

24

Amendment rights during the course of discovery in this action. Plaintiff is now informed that,

25

to the extent he does not want to answer questions based on a reasonable fear of self-

26

incrimination in a criminal case, he can invoke his Fifth Amendment rights, but should note that

27

an adverse inference may be drawn in this civil action from the invocation of such rights. See

28

Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318-19 (1976).
6

1

B.

Miscellaneous Motions
Plaintiff has filed a "motion seeking administrative relief," specifically that defendants

3

comply with California Code of Civil Procedure § 7.11(a). Docket # 20. The motion is

4

DENIED because there is no such section of the California Code of Civil Procedure and, even

5

if there was such a section, the procedural rules of the California Code of Civil Procedure would

6

not govern the conduct of cases in federal court. Local Rule 7-11 of the Northern District of

7

California's Local Rules provides that, when a motion for administrative relief "is manually filed,

8

the moving party must deliver the motion and all attachments to all other parties on the same day

9

as the motion is filed." N. D. Cal. Local Rule 7-11(a); see also id. at Rule 7-11(b) (manually

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

2

filed opposition also "must be delivered to all other parties the same day it is manually filed").

11

Hand-delivery of motions for administrative relief and oppositions thereto generally is not

12

possible when one of the parties is incarcerated and proceeding pro se. Requirements of hand-

13

delivery, such as in Local Rule 7-11, will not be enforced in this case because one of the parties

14

is incarcerated and proceeding pro se. Defense counsel failed to serve on plaintiff a copy of the

15

defense administrative motion for administrative relief (Docket # 12) at the time she filed the

16

motion due to a secretarial oversight. See Docket # 22-1. Defense counsel is urged to speak to

17

the appropriate secretarial staff to make sure this mistake is not repeated and to specifically

18

explain to such staff that this case requires compliance with the rules for both electronic filing

19

and manual service on the incarcerated plaintiff.

20

After plaintiff indicated he wanted to further amend to add new defendants, the court

21

ordered him to file his second amended complaint no later than June 12, 2015, or the action

22

would proceed without the new defendant(s). See Docket # 19. Plaintiff did not file the second

23

amended complaint by the deadline, so the action will proceed with the amended complaint as

24

the operative pleading.

25
26

C.

Scheduling

27

In light of the parties' discovery disputes which have now been resolved, it is necessary

28

to reset the briefing schedule for dispositive motions so that defendants may take plaintiff's
7

1

deposition and plaintiff may take defendants' depositions. The court now requires the parties to

2

meet and confer to discuss discovery and resets the briefing schedule for dispositive motions.
1.

3

No later than July 24, 2015, defense counsel must send to plaintiff a list of

4

dates during the following six weeks when each defendant would be available for a deposition.

5

For each defendant, defense counsel must provide at least two available dates on which that

6

defendant may be deposed.

7

2.

No later than August 3. 2015, Plaintiff must send to defense counsel a letter

in which he identifies the date, time and location for each defendant's deposition. The letter must

9

give at least seven days' notice of the date and time of the deposition of each defendant.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

Plaintiff also must confirm the following in a letter to defense counsel at least four days before

11

the date set for each deposition: (1) that plaintiff has hired a court reporter/stenographer who is

12

ready, willing and able to report the deposition; and (2) that plaintiff has obtained permission

13

from jail officials to conduct the deposition on the date and time he has selected.

14

3.

Defendants may take the deposition of plaintiff no later than August 20,

15

2015. Defendants must provide at least four days' notice of the date and time of the deposition

16

to plaintiff.

17

4.

The court now resets the briefing schedule on motions for summary

18

judgment and other dispositive motions. Defendants' motion for summary judgment or other

19

dispositive motion must be filed and served no later than September 25, 2015. Plaintiff's

20

opposition to the motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion must be filed and

21

served on defense counsel no later than October 23, 2015. Defendants' reply brief, if any, must

22

be filed and served no later than November 13, 2015.

23

Having determined sua sponte that the dispositive motion schedule must be adjusted to

24

deal with the resolution of the discovery disputes, the court DISMISSES as moot defendants'

25

motion for an extension of the deadline to file their dispositive motion. Docket # 31.

26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 20, 2015

_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

28
8