ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF; GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE

BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.

(Docket Nos. 27 & 28)

Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 9, 2018, the Court ordered service on Defendant Duane Christian for violating Plaintiff's First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances based on his refusal to allow Plaintiff to file grievances. (Docket No. 5.) Defendants' dispositive motion is currently due ninety-one days from the filing of the Court's August 20, 2018 order, i.e., no later than November 19, 2018. (Docket No. 18 at 4.)

On October 22, 2018, Defendants filed a notice and motion to dismiss this action on the grounds that Plaintiff, without good cause, had unjustifiably refused to appear for his properly noticed deposition. (Docket No. 27.) In the alternative, Defendants request an order from the Court compelling Plaintiff to submit to a deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a). (Id.) According to Defendants, they served Plaintiff a Notice of Taking Deposition under Rule 30, stating that the deposition was set for October 17, 2018, at 8:00 a.m. at the Humboldt County Correctional Facility ("HCCF") in Eureka, California. (Id. at 2.) On that date, Defendants' counsel appeared at HCCF, but Plaintiff refused to leave his jail cell and be escorted to the deposition by jail officials. (Id. at 2-3.) When Defendants' counsel spoke with Plaintiff at his cell, Plaintiff again refused to come out of his cell and appear for his deposition, citing a motion he had recently filed that opposed the deposition and requested an attorney be present for the deposition. (Id. at 3.) At that time, counsel had not yet received any such motion. (Id.)

Plaintiff filed an "Opposition of Surprise Notice of Taking Deposition," which was docketed on October 15, 2018. (Docket No. 25.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendants must seek leave of court to take his deposition and that Defendants did not comply with Rule 30(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) Plaintiff also seeks an attorney to be appointed to represent him at the deposition in order to protect his rights. (Id.) With respect to the necessity of a court order, Plaintiff is simply mistaken. In the Court's August 20, 2018 Order, the Court ordered discovery to be taken in accordance with Rule 30(a)(2), and stated that no further court order is required before the parties may conduct discovery. (Docket No. 18 at 6.) Furthermore, the Court has already denied Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances. (See Docket No. 10.) Facing a deposition is not an exceptional circumstance that warrants appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the request is DENIED.

In light of the foregoing, Defendants' request for a court order compelling Plaintiff to submit to a deposition under Rule 37(a) is GRANTED. Unless Plaintiff prefers the more severe sanction of dismissal of this entire action for his refusal to appear for the deposition, he shall appear for and submit to an oral deposition upon proper notice by Defendants' counsel.

Defendants' application to continue the deadline to file a motion for summary judgment, (Docket No. 28), is GRANTED. Defendants are granted an extension of time until February 18, 2019, to file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 27 and 28.

IT IS SO ORDERED.