Ross v. Palacios
- Jon Tigar
- 4:23-cv-00640
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Ross v. Palacios, Judge Tigar postponed ruling on Johnson’s deposition subpoena and granted defendants more time to file a dispositive motion.
The order affects Johnson, who was given an opportunity to respond to the motion to compel; defendants, who received an extension to file their dispositive motion by September 6, 2024; and Ross, whose opposition deadline will run from the filing of that motion.
What happened
In Ross v. Palacios, Jayvion Ross, an incarcerated plaintiff, alleges that correctional officers used excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Defendants asked the court to require Johnson, a nonparty witness, to attend a deposition and to extend the deadline for filing a motion that could resolve the case. Johnson had refused to attend the first scheduled deposition.
Judge Tigar gave Johnson until July 19, 2024, to respond before ruling on the deposition request, and granted defendants’ request to extend their deadline. Defendants must file their dispositive motion by September 6, 2024.
The detailed version
- Ross v. Palacios · No. 4:23-cv-00640
- Jon Tigar
- July 10, 2024
Background
Jayvion Ross, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that correctional officers at Salinas Valley State Prison used excessive force against him, violating the Eighth Amendment.
Defendants asked the court to compel Johnson, a nonparty witness, to comply with a deposition subpoena. Defendants said Johnson was involved in and observed the altercation at issue, and that Ross had identified Johnson as one of his witnesses. The subpoena required Johnson and Ross to attend a deposition. Johnson did not attend, and neither Johnson nor Ross objected to the subpoena. Defendants had scheduled another deposition for July 16, 2024.
Motion to Compel
The court explained that a nonparty may challenge a deposition subpoena by asking the court to cancel or change it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The court noted that the limited grounds for canceling or changing a subpoena did not appear to apply to Johnson. But because Johnson is incarcerated, the court declined to rule immediately on defendants’ request to compel his deposition.
The court requested that Johnson respond to the motion to compel by July 19, 2024. If the court did not receive a response postmarked by that date, it stated that it would rule on the motion. The court did not grant or deny the motion to compel in this order.
Extension of Dispositive-Motion Deadline
Defendants also asked for more time to file a dispositive motion, meaning a motion that could resolve the claims without a trial. They argued that Johnson’s failure to attend the deposition required more time. The court found good cause based on defendants’ representation that Johnson’s testimony was relevant and GRANTED the request.
Defendants must file their dispositive motion by September 6, 2024. Ross’s opposition is due 28 days after the motion is filed, and defendants’ reply is due 14 days after the opposition is filed. The court stated that the motion would be submitted when the reply is due and that no hearing would be held.
Disposition
The court requested Johnson’s response to the pending motion to compel and stated that it would rule on that motion after the response deadline. It GRANTED defendants’ request for an extension of time to file their dispositive motion. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order on July 10, 2024.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.