Opinion
2:21-cv-0143-TLN-EFB P
12-06-2021
MICHAEL JACQUES, Plaintiff, v. M. BRAHNEY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 25, 2021, plaintiff filed objections to defendants' request for deposition, which was noticed for October 28, 2021. ECF No. 31. Defendants did not file a response and the court does not know whether the deposition took place as planned. Regardless, the court issues this order overruling plaintiff's objections.
Plaintiff objects to the deposition for the following reasons: (1) he only had one-week notice; (2) he is not in possession of documents requested; and (3) he requests a copy of his complaint. Plaintiff does not fault defendants for the late notice of the deposition. Assuming defendants properly noticed the deposition, plaintiff's general complaint that “1 week isn't sufficient . . . with the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak” does not excuse him from his obligation to participate in his deposition. Nor do reasons 2 or 3 excuse him from participating. Plaintiff may seek an extension of time to produce any requested documents and he has not shown that he needs a copy of his own complaint to sit for a deposition in this action that he commenced. For these reasons, plaintiffs objections (ECF No. 31) are overruled.
So ordered.