(PC) Stevens v. Beard ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LYRALISA LAVENA STEVENS, No. 1:17-cv-01002-JLT-SAB (PC) 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO TAKING OF DEPOSITION 9 v. (ECF Nos. 85, 86) 10 JEFFREY BEARD, et al. 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983. 15 On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for the Court to take notice of Exhibits A-I to 16 A-28, and objections to Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to participate in deposition. (ECF 17 Nos. 85, 86.) 18 On October 1, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s 19 participation in her deposition and extended the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines. 20 (ECF No. 84.) 21 Plaintiff now objects to Defendants’ motion to compel her deposition arguing that she is 22 being compelled to be a witness against himself and “Defendants have emailed malware to 23 Plaintiff’s computer to hinder [her] ability to respond, falsified material facts-thus committing 24 INTRINSIC FRAUD, conspired with Vertez to change Plaintiff from a Plaintiff into a witness, 25 amounting to EXTRINSIC FRAUD, violations of the CFAA-Title 18 U.S.C. § 1030.” (ECF No. 26 86 at 1-2.) In support of her objections, Plaintiff has submitted numerous exhibits. (ECF No. 27 85.) 28 Although Plaintiff argues that she will be compelled to be a witness against herself, as 1 | stated in the Court’s October 1, 2024, order, “Defendants are entitled to depose Plaintiff, within 2 | the parameters of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and orders of the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30; 3 | ECF No. 78 at 2.” (ECF No. 84 at 4.) In addition, the Court has ordered that Plaintiff appear in- 4 | person at the nearest Office of the Attorney General in order to participate in the taking of her 5 | deposition to prevent any potential technical difficulties. Further, Plaintiff has provided no valid 6 | evidence or argument that a violation of the CFAA took place. “The CFAA was enacted in 1984 7 | to enhance the government's ability to prosecute computer crimes [and] was originally designed 8 || to target hackers[.]” LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 9 | 18 U.S.C. § 1030). “The CFAA prohibits a number of different computer crimes, the majority of 10 | which involve accessing computers without authorization or in excess of authorization, and then 11 || taking specified forbidden actions, ranging from obtaining information to damaging a computer 12 | or computer data.” Id. at 1130. The CFAA is a criminal statute which creates a limited right of 13 | action for private persons injured by such crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g). A private plaintiff must 14 | prove that the defendant violated one of the provisions of § 1030(a)(1)-(7), and that the violation 15 | involved at least one of five factors set forth by subclause in the statute. See LVRC Holdings 16 | LLC, 581 F.3d at 1131. The plain language of the CFAA targets the access of computer 17 | information, rather than misuse or misappropriation. United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854, 863 18 | (9th Cir. 2012). There is no valid evidence to support a finding that Defendants improperly 19 | accessed Plaintiff's computer information. 20 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has provided no valid legal basis to refuse to be deposed 21 | and Plaintiff's objections are HEREBY OVERRULED. Plaintiff is again reminded that she must 22 || participate in the taking of her deposition and the failure to do so may result in the imposition of 23 | sanctions, including dismissal of the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 26 | Dated: _ October 10, 2024 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28