Saddozai v. Davis

Background

Shikeb Saddozai, a California state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against employees at San Quentin State Prison. The third amended complaint was the operative complaint. After the case was reopened on remand, the only remaining claim was against Defendant Clawson for allegedly failing to protect Saddozai during an assault by several inmates, during which Clawson shot Saddozai with a block gun.

The order addressed several discovery-related motions. Saddozai had failed to appear for a properly noticed deposition on November 17, 2022. On January 9, 2023, the court ordered him to submit to a deposition and warned that refusing to appear could result in dismissal of the action under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Written-Deposition Request

Saddozai objected to an oral deposition and asked to provide answers to written questions instead. He also renewed his request for appointed counsel and cited alleged prison problems, including lack of disability accommodations, loss of legal property, mail interference, inadequate mental-health assistance, COVID-19 exposure, poor living conditions, and limited law-library access. He also asserted that medical issues would make an oral deposition difficult and that defense counsel had not provided enough information for him to prepare.

The court found these reasons insufficient. It concluded that the alleged prison conditions did not show that Saddozai could not attend an oral deposition, that deposition preparation was not an exceptional circumstance requiring appointed counsel, and that medical accommodations or additional information could be requested from defense counsel. The court also noted that Saddozai had been deposed in other cases. It denied Saddozai’s objection to the oral deposition and request for a written deposition.

Sanctions Motion

At the February 9, 2023, deposition, Saddozai appeared and was sworn but then refused to answer questions. He repeated his objections, said he would object to every question, and stated that he would not answer without a lawyer. Defense counsel showed him the order compelling his deposition and warned him that noncompliance could result in monetary or terminating sanctions. The deposition was suspended.

The defendant sought terminating sanctions, meaning sanctions that could end the case, and monetary sanctions. The defendant requested $1,952.05 in attorney’s fees and costs connected with the two deposition attempts. The court denied Saddozai’s objections to defense counsel’s declaration, finding that the declaration was based on personal knowledge and that Saddozai’s objections were meritless.

The court found persuasive grounds for terminating and monetary sanctions, concluding that Saddozai had used delaying tactics and acted in bad faith regarding the deposition. However, because of the interests of justice and Saddozai’s status as a party without a lawyer, the court gave him one final opportunity to comply. It denied the sanctions motion without prejudice to reconsidering and granting it if Saddozai failed to comply. The court ordered him to appear at an oral deposition and make a good-faith effort to answer all questions. It warned that failure to appear and answer in good faith could result in terminating sanctions and an award of reasonable fees and costs.

Motion to Compel Legal Authorities

Saddozai asked the court to require the defendant to provide all case law and other legal authorities cited in the defendant’s filings. He argued that he was preparing a summary-judgment motion and could not obtain the authorities through the prison law library. The defendant responded that it was impossible to determine what authorities Saddozai wanted and that the defendant should not be required to conduct legal research for him. The defendant nevertheless provided a list of authorities cited in the sanctions motion.

The court found no good cause for the request. It said Saddozai’s general and unsupported allegations about law-library access were insufficient and noted that the filings served on him included citations to the authorities relied upon. The court denied the motion to compel.

Motion Concerning Legal Mail

Saddozai also asked the court to order correctional authorities or defense counsel to stop allegedly withholding or concealing his legal mail and to take judicial notice of facts and exhibits. The court found that the attached exhibits did not support his allegations. The only mail-related document was a memorandum about processing and inspecting confidential correspondence, and it did not mention a specific incident involving Saddozai or his mail. The court denied this motion.

Other Disposition and Required Deposition

Because the order resolved the discovery issues, the court denied the defendant’s motion to stay discovery as moot. It required the defendant to properly notice Saddozai for an in-person oral deposition no later than 42 days after the order was filed. Saddozai was ordered to appear and answer all questions in good faith. The defendant had to notify the court within seven days after the scheduled deposition whether Saddozai complied. If he did not, the defendant could ask the court to reconsider granting terminating and monetary sanctions.

The order therefore denied: (1) Saddozai’s objection to the oral deposition and request for a written deposition; (2) the defendant’s motion for terminating and monetary sanctions, without prejudice; (3) the defendant’s motion to stay discovery, as moot; (4) Saddozai’s motion to compel legal authorities; and (5) Saddozai’s motion for a court order.