Ross v. Palacios

Background

Jayvion Ross, who is incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that correctional officers at Salinas Valledy State Prison used excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

During Ross’s deposition, he identified Demetrius Johnson, a nonparty inmate, as an eyewitness who tried to intervene while Ross was being restrained. The defendants served Johnson with a subpoena for a deposition. Johnson refused to attend the first scheduled deposition. He appeared by videoconference for a rescheduled deposition but said he was uncomfortable, that the lawsuit did not concern him, and that he needed to speak with Ross before testifying. Johnson then left and refused to return.

The court previously granted the defendants’ motion to compel Johnson to comply with the subpoena. It found that Johnson’s testimony was relevant and that the record did not show a basis for quashing or changing the subpoena. Rather than order a third deposition notice, the court told the defendants to seek appropriate relief addressing their inability to obtain Johnson’s testimony, either at summary judgment or at trial.

Motion for Evidentiary Sanctions

The defendants then moved for evidentiary sanctions. They asked the court to preclude Johnson from testifying at trial, to preclude Ross from introducing a declaration or affidavit from Johnson, and to preclude Ross from arguing or commenting on Johnson’s observations. Ross did not oppose the motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that federal courts may sanction discovery abuses under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and under their inherent power to manage cases and prevent abuse of the judicial process. Rule 37 authorizes sanctions against parties who fail to cooperate in discovery. Rule 45 governs subpoenas to nonparties and allows a court to hold a person in contempt for failing, without an adequate excuse, to obey a subpoena.

The court recognized that it also has inherent authority to punish contempt, but said that this authority must be exercised with restraint and discretion. Johnson was a third party, and nothing in the record suggested that Ross controlled him. The defendants cited no case imposing the requested type of sanction on a party because of a nonparty’s conduct.

Disposition

Judge Jon S. Tigar denied the defendants’ motion for evidentiary sanctions. The court did not impose the requested restrictions on Johnson’s testimony or on Ross’s use or discussion of Johnson’s observations. The order terminated ECF No. 46. It did not resolve the merits of Ross’s excessive-force claims.