White v. Clark et al

Filing 214

ORDER: ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Letter advising the Court that he will not attend his deposition, to the extent it is construed as a request for a protective order (Dkt. No. 213 ), is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendants' counsel is permitted to take the deposition of Plaintiff; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiff's disagreement with any directives of security staff at the correctional facility is not a ground on which the Plaintiff may refuse to answer questions; and it is further ORDERED, that the failure of Plaintiff to attend, be sworn, and answer questions may result in sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which may include an award for costs associated with the deposition and a recommendation of dismissal of this action. However, valid objections made in good faith to inappropriate questions are permissible; and it is further ORDERED, that in accordance with previous Orders, the Court reminds the p arties that no motions, pleadings, or other documents may be filed without first seeking leave of the Court. All unauthorized filings shall be returned to the filer by the Clerk of the Court without further order from this Court; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order upon the parties inaccordance with the Local Rules. Signed by Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece on 2/27/2014. (ptm) (Copy served on plaintiff by regular mail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JOHN H. WHITE,
Plaintiff
-v-

Civ. No. 9:12-CV-986
(NAM/RFT)

JEFFREY CLARK, et al.,
Defendants.

RANDOLPH F. TREECE
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER
On Februray 11, 2013, this Court issued a Mandatory Pretrial Discovery and Scheduling Order,
which, inter alia, set various pretrial deadlines.1 Dkt. No. 85. Within that Order, the Court granted
Defendants leave to take Plaintiff’s deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(B).
Id. at p. 4. The Order also directs the exchange of certain discovery in this action. See generally id.
Recently, Plaintiff has sent a Letter to the Court concerning his upcoming deposition, currently
set for some unspecified date in March 2014. See Dkt. No. 213. Plaintiff explains that although he
would like to participate in his upcoming deposition, he nevertheless refuses to attend because he does
not want to leave his legal materials, and other personal property, unattended in his cell. He speculates
that when he is absent from his cell, other inmates in the unit will encourage his cell mate to review his
papers and pass them around. Id.
To the extent Plaintiff’s Letter can be construed as asking the Court for a protective order
excusing him from his deposition, that request is denied. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil

1

Some of those deadlines were extended by this Court on January 9, 2014, when it addressed multiple Motions
filed by Plaintiff seeking various forms of relief. Dkt. No. 202. Currently, the discovery deadline is March 31, 2014
and the final day to file dispositive motions is April 30, 2014. Id.

Procedure and this Court’s Mandatory Pretrial Discovery and Scheduling Order, Plaintiff is obligated
to participate in good faith in a properly noticed deposition. See Dkt. No. 85 & FED. R. CIV. P. 30.
Plaintiff is warned that his failure to attend, be sworn, and participate in his deposition in good faith
will result in the Court issuing sanctions, which may include costs associated with the deposition and
a recommendation of dismissal of this action. FED. R. CIV. P. 30(g) & 37(b) & (d).
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Letter advising the Court that he will not attend his deposition, to
the extent it is construed as a request for a protective order (Dkt. No. 213), is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants’ counsel is permitted to take the deposition of Plaintiff; and it is
further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s disagreement with any directives of security staff at the correctional
facility is not a ground on which the Plaintiff may refuse to answer questions; and it is further
ORDERED, that the failure of Plaintiff to attend, be sworn, and answer questions may result
in sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which may include an award
for costs associated with the deposition and a recommendation of dismissal of this action. However,
valid objections made in good faith to inappropriate questions are permissible; and it is further
ORDERED, that in accordance with previous Orders, the Court reminds the parties that no
motions, pleadings, or other documents may be filed without first seeking leave of the Court. All
unauthorized filings shall be returned to the filer by the Clerk of the Court without further order from
this Court; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order upon the parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.

-2-

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 27, 2014
Albany, New York

-3-