Davall v. Cordero

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH DAVALL, Case No.: 20-cv-1968-JLS-KSC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER OVERRULING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO 14 A. CORDERO; et al., DEPOSE HIM 15 Defendants. [Doc. No. 50] 16 17

19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Joseph Davall’s “Objection to Respondents [sic] 20 Request to Depose [Plaintiff].” Doc. No. 50. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s 21 Objection is OVERRULED. 22 Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison and is proceeding pro se 23 and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 24 4, 2021, defendant Whitman (“defendant”) sought the Court’s leave pursuant to Federal 25 Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(B) to take plaintiff’s deposition.1 Doc. No. 46. The Court 26

27 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(B) requires a party to obtain the Court’s leave to take the 28 1 granted the request on August 9, 2021, finding plaintiff’s testimony relevant to the 2 disposition of this action. See Doc. No. 48. 3 In his Objection, dated August 12, 2021, plaintiff states that defendant’s request to 4 take his deposition is “nothing more than a delay tactic” and that defendant “can not [sic] 5 possibly hope to learn anything new by taking [his] deposition[.]” Doc. No. 50 at 1-2. The 6 Court does not find this argument persuasive. The purpose of discovery is to develop 7 factual support for a party’s claims or defenses. Depositions are a regular and common 8 device used for this purpose. 9 Plaintiff also states that it is “against the principles of a fair trial” to require that he 10 sit for deposition because he is a pro se litigant whereas defendant is represented by “a 11 seasoned attorney.”2 Id. at 2. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff’s pro se status is not an excuse 12 to refuse to engage in discovery or comply with the Court’s rules and orders. See Sanchez 13 v. Rodriguez, 298 F.R.D. 460, 470 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (adopting recommendation for 14 dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s willful noncompliance with discovery). Indeed, “[p]ro se 15 litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants,” including the 16 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this District’s Local Rules, and the undersigned’s 17 Chambers’ Rules.3 Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997) 18 (citation omitted); see also CivLR 83.11. 19 For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds plaintiff has not shown any reason why 20 his deposition should not proceed and therefore OVERRULES plaintiff’s Objection [Doc. 21 No. 50]. Plaintiff is ordered to cooperate with defendant in the scheduling and conduct of 22 his deposition. If disputes arise regarding or during the deposition, plaintiff – like all 23

24 25 2 Plaintiff also states “it would not be proper to allow a seasoned attorney to question me without the effective assistance of counsel.” Id. at 2. To the extent this statement can be construed as a request that 26 the Court appoint counsel to represent plaintiff, the request is denied for the reasons set forth in the Court’s August 9, 2021 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Appoint Counsel. Doc. No. 49. 27 3 The Local Rules and the undersigned’s Chambers’ Rules are available on the Court’s website. See 28 1 || parties before the Court — is expected to meet and confer with defendant in good faith. If 2 necessary and only after their meet and confer obligation has been satisfied, the parties may 3 ||seek the Court’s assistance in resolving a discovery dispute. See Chambers’ Rules and 4 || Civil Pretrial Procedures for the Honorable Karen S. Crawford, § VIII.A. 5 |} IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: August 24, 2021 Me Uf; 7 VC LA “EEE Hori. Karen S. Crawford 5 United States Magistrate Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28