Guzman v. Jones
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-03757-HSG
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Guzman v. Dorsey, Judge Gilliam granted deposition and scheduling requests but denied sanctions in this discovery order.
Mayito Guzman must participate meaningfully in a deposition. Defendants Dorsey and Boerum may take the deposition, and their deadline for filing a motion addressing the claims or defenses will be set for 60 days after the deposition is completed. No monetary sanctions were imposed at this time.
What happened
In Guzman v. D.DORSEY, et al., Mayito Guzman, a prisoner representing himself, refused to take an oath or answer questions during a scheduled deposition in his civil-rights case.
The court ordered Guzman to sit for and meaningfully participate in the deposition and changed the schedule so defendants’ motion addressing the claims or defenses would be due 60 days after the deposition. The court denied defendants’ request for $275 in sanctions.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. said Guzman’s refusal was likely not justified, but found it unclear whether imposing monetary sanctions would be fair at that time. The order warned that the court would strongly consider sanctions if Guzman continued refusing to participate in discovery in good faith.
The detailed version
- Guzman v. Jones · No. 4:19-cv-03757-HSG
- Haywood Gilliam
- June 7, 2021
Background
Mayito Guzman filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against San Quentin State Prison officers Dorsey and Boerum. He alleged that they violated his due-process and equal-protection rights by transferring him away from San Quentin State Prison in February 2018. The opinion states that Guzman was an inmate at California State Prison—Solano and was representing himself.
Defendants noticed Guzman’s video deposition for March 18, 2021. When Guzman appeared, he asked that the deposition be postponed because he had recently requested appointment of counsel. The court later denied that request and reset the deadline for defendants’ motion addressing the claims or defenses.
Defendants then noticed another video deposition for April 30, 2021. Guzman did not object to the deposition notice, but when he appeared, he said he was not prepared and repeatedly refused to take an oath or answer questions. Counsel showed him the court’s order denying appointment of counsel, but Guzman still refused to participate, so the deposition was suspended.
Court’s Rulings
The court granted defendants’ request to require Guzman to sit for and meaningfully participate in his deposition. The court explained that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow defendants to depose him and require responsible participation in relevant and proportionate discovery.
The court also granted defendants’ request to modify the briefing schedule. Defendants must file their motion addressing the claims or defenses 60 days after Guzman’s deposition is completed. After defendants re-notice the deposition, they must file a courtesy copy of the notice with the court so the court can set the revised schedule.
The court denied defendants’ request for sanctions requiring Guzman to pay the costs incurred because of his refusal to participate. The court stated that Guzman’s refusal was unlikely to have been substantially justified, but found it unclear whether monetary sanctions would be fair at that time. The court warned that it would strongly consider sanctions in the future if Guzman continued refusing to participate in discovery in good faith.
Disposition
The order granted the request to compel the deposition, granted the request to modify the briefing schedule, and denied the request for sanctions. It terminated the motion at Docket No. 28. The order addressed discovery and scheduling, not the merits of Guzman’s civil-rights claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.