(PS) Johnson v. Lake Shastina Police Dept ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 POLLY JOHNSON, No. 2:19-CV-1193-MCE-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 LAKE SHASTINA POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the 19 Court is Defendants’ unopposed motion, ECF No. 15, to compel Plaintiff to attend her deposition. 20 The matter was submitted on the papers without a hearing. 21 The purpose of discovery is to "remove surprise from trial preparation so the 22 parties can obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute." United States v. 23 Chapman Univ., 245 F.R.D. 646, 648 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (quotation and citation omitted). Rule 24 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offers guidance on the scope of discovery 25 permitted: 26 Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged information that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of 27 the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, 28 the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the 1 issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery 2 need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 4 Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "a party seeking discovery 5 may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection." Fed. R. 6 Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an "evasive or 7 incomplete disclosure, answer, or response." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). "District courts have 'broad 8 discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil 9 Procedure 16.'" Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v. 10 Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)). 11 The party moving to compel bears the burden of informing the court (1) which 12 discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, (2) which of the responses are 13 disputed, (3) why the party believes the response is deficient, (4) why any objections are not 14 justified, and (5) why the information sought through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of 15 this action. McCoy v. Ramirez, No. 1:13-cv-1808-MJS (PC), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75435, 2016 16 WL 3196738, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2016); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-5646-AWI-SMS PC, 17 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24418, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). 18 "Relevance for purposes of discovery is defined very broadly." Garneau v. City of 19 Seattle, 147 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 1998). "The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden 20 of establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). Thereafter, 21 the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, 22 and the burden of clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections." Bryant v. Ochoa, No. 23 07cv200 JM (PCL), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42339, 2009 WL 1390794, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 24 2009) (internal citation omitted). 25 Defendants have established by way of declaration that Plaintiff has failed to 26 appear for her properly noticed deposition. See ECF No. 16-1. Clearly, the deposition of a 27 plaintiff in a civil action is a means of seeking relevant discovery. The Court thus finds that 28 Defendants have met their burden on the instant motion to compel. Plaintiff has not filed any 1 | opposition. Defendants’ motion will be granted and Plaintiff will be ordered to attend a properly 2 | noticed deposition. 3 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)(3), the Court will also award 4 | Defendants reasonable fees and costs associated with the instant motion. Defense counsel states 5 || he charges $285.00 per hour for his services, and that he expended four hours in preparation of 6 | Defendants’ motion to compel. See ECF No. 16-1, pg. 6. The Court will, therefore, order 7 | Plaintiff to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,140.00. 8 Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with any portion of this order may, on 9 | appropriate motion, be grounds for terminating and other allowable sanctions. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Defendants’ motion to compel, ECF No. 15, is granted; 12 2. Plaintiff shall attend her properly noticed deposition within 60 days of the 13 | date of this order; and 14 3, Plaintiff shall pay to Defendants sanctions in the amount of $1,140.00 15 | within 60 days of the date of this order. 16 17 | Dated: August 18, 2021 18 DENNIS M. COTA 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28