(PC) Houston v. Ngai ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM HOUSTON, No. 2:20-cv-1051 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 NGAI, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendants failed to adequately respond to his mental 19 health issues in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Presently before the court is defendants’ 20 motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order (“DSO”) (ECF No. 46) and plaintiff’s 21 request for sanctions, stay, and settlement conference (ECF No. 45). 22 I. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions, Stay, and Settlement Conference 23 Plaintiff filed a one-page document requesting that the case be stayed and scheduled for a 24 settlement conference. (ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff requests a stay and settlement conference because 25 the deposition was not conducted on June 1, 2022. 26 A. Sanctions 27 Federal courts possess broad powers to impose sanctions against parties or counsel for 28 improper conduct during litigation. The court derives the power to impose sanctions on parties or 1 their counsel from three sources, (1) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1927,1 2 and (3) the court’s inherent power. Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001). 3 It appears that plaintiff’s request for sanctions is based on defendants’ failure to comply 4 with the deadline for taking plaintiff’s deposition set forth in the court’s April 1, 2022, order 5 (ECF No. 43). In order to impose sanctions pursuant to its inherent power, “the court must make 6 an express finding that the sanctioned party’s behavior ‘constituted or was tantamount to bad 7 faith.’” Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir. 2006). Defendants’ motion to 8 modify the DSO indicates that they were unable to conduct the deposition because of scheduling 9 issues exacerbated by concerns related to the potential risk of COVID-19 exposure. (ECF No. 10 46.) Plaintiff has not presented any information that would indicate defendants’ failure to timely 11 conduct plaintiff’s deposition was due to bad faith. Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff’s 12 request for sanctions. 13 B. Stay 14 The United States Supreme Court has clearly indicated that “the power to stay 15 proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the 16 cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How 17 this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interest and 18 maintain an even balance.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). In this 19 regard, “the proponent of the stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 20 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Because plaintiff has not offered any explanation to support his 21 request for stay, the court will deny the request without prejudice. 22 C. Settlement Conference 23 Plaintiff has not provided any explanation in support of his request that the court order the 24 parties to participate in a settlement conference. Defendants have not indicated a willingness to 25 participate in a settlement conference at this time. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for a 26 settlement conference will be denied. 27 1 This section is aimed at penalizing conduct that unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies the 28 proceedings which his not applicable here. 1 II. Defendants’ Motion to Modify the DSO 2 Defendants state that plaintiff's deposition was scheduled to be taken in-person on June 1, 3 | 2022. (ECF No. 46-1 at 2.) However, when they could not locate a court reporter willing to 4 | appear in person at the Sacramento County Jail, the deposition was cancelled. Because 5 | defendants could not locate a court reporter willing to risk potential COVID-19 exposure, the 6 || Sacramento County Jail made arrangements to accommodate a deposition by videoconference. 7 | The deposition was tentatively rescheduled for the earliest date available, June 28, 2022. (Id. at 8 | 2-3.) Good cause appearing, the court will grant defendants’ motion to modify the DSO. 9 I. Conclusion 10 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Plaintiffs motion for sanctions, stay, and settlement conference (ECF No. 45) is 12 | denied without prejudice. 13 2. Defendants’ motion to modify the DSO (ECF No. 46) is granted. 14 3. Defendants shall notice plaintiff's deposition no later than July 14, 2022. 15 | Dated: June 28, 2022 17 18 ‘BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 DB:12 25 || DB:1Orders/Prisoner/Civil Rights/hous 1051 .mod.dso(2) 26 27 28