Keen v. Cross

Summary

The Eastern District of California grants defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff Brandon Keen to resume his deposition in this § 1983 action. The court holds that plaintiff’s desire to review video evidence and obtain counsel did not justify refusing to answer deposition questions, and it warns that further noncooperation could result in terminating sanctions. The court also extends the discovery and dispositive-motion deadlines for the limited purpose of completing the deposition, while denying plaintiff’s motion to compel production of the video as procedurally improper and untimely.

Holdings

1. A deponent may not refuse to answer deposition questions on those grounds. Plaintiff was required to appear and participate in the properly noticed deposition without appointed counsel.
2. Defendants were entitled to an order compelling plaintiff to resume and complete his deposition.
3. The scheduling order was modified to extend the discovery deadline for 90 days from the date of the order for the limited purpose of taking plaintiff's deposition, with the dispositive-motion deadline extended to 90 days after the new discovery deadline.
4. Plaintiff's motion to compel was properly denied because he did not show that defendants had failed to respond to a discovery request and because he filed the motion after the applicable discovery deadlines.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants were entitled to an order compelling plaintiff to resume and participate in his deposition.
2. Whether plaintiff could refuse to answer deposition questions because he had not viewed a video of the incident or lacked appointed counsel.
3. Whether good cause supported extending the discovery and dispositive-motion deadlines for the limited purpose of completing plaintiff's deposition.
4. Whether plaintiff's motion to compel production of the video was proper when he had not shown that he first served a discovery request and filed the motion after the applicable deadlines.

Disposition

other