1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CRAIG PAYTON, Case No. 2:23-cv-1886-DC-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. DISCOVERY ORDER RE: COMPEL DEPOSITION OF NON-PARTY STEVEN 14 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., JONES 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 34) 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Craig Payton’s motion to compel the 18 deposition of Steven Jones, a non-party and former employee of Defendant Union 19 Pacific Railroad Co. (ECF No. 34.) Mr. Jones was properly served with the notice of 20 motion and motion, and did not file an opposition or response. Defendant does not 21 oppose Plaintiff’s motion to compel and agrees that Mr. Jones’ deposition should be 22 compelled. A hearing was held on July 12, 2025 where Jessica Danielski appeared as 23 counsel for Plaintiff, and Simone Leighty appeared as counsel for Defendant. Despite 24 being served with Plaintiff’s notice of motion and motion, Mr. Jones did not attend the 25 hearing. As stated on the record, the Court GRANTED Plaintiff’s motion to compel Mr. 26 Jones’ deposition. 27 “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant 28 to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ.

(b)(1). Proportionality turns on “the importance of the issues at stake in the action, 2 the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the 3 parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether 4 the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.”

5 “[B]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery....” Hallett v. 6 Morgan,

, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Mr. Jones was an employee of Defendant at 7 the time of the underlying incident and a witness to the underlying issues raised in this 8 action. As such, his testimony is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s defenses, 9 and properly sought here. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 10 Depositions of non-parties are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30 11 and 45. “A party may, by oral questions, depose any person, including a party, without 12 leave of court except as provided in Rule 30(a)(2). The deponent's attendance may be 13 compelled by subpoena under Rule 45.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1). Pursuant to Federal 14 Rule of Civil Procedure 45, Mr. Jones was twice properly subpoenaed to attend and 15 testify at a deposition, and he was served with both subpoenas. See Pl. Mot. at 3-4; 16 Decl. of Jessica Danielski ¶¶ 5-6, 9, 11-13 (ECF No. 34-1). Plaintiff made extensive 17 efforts to locate, contact, and serve Mr. Jones with the subpoenas for his deposition. 18 Despite this, Mr. Jones did not attend the first deposition on September 16, 2024 or the 19 second deposition on June 3, 2025. See Pl. Mot. at 3-4; Danielski Decl. ¶¶ 9, 13 & Exhs. 20 G and I. Counsel for both Plaintiff and Defendant attended both depositions, and a 21 record was made of Mr. Jones’ failure to appear at each deposition. Id. 22 Mr. Jones is expressly warned that the failure to comply with the Court’s order to 23 attend and participate in his deposition may result in the imposition of sanctions against 24 him, including contempt of court, costs for all missed depositions, and reasonable 25 expenses including reasonable attorney’s fees for all missed depositions. 26 CONCLUSION 27 The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel Steven Jones’ 28 deposition (ECF No. 34). Mr. Jones is ordered to attend his deposition as will be set by a 1 | third deposition notice and subpoena. 2 Plaintiff must personally serve a copy of this order on Mr. Jones. 3 The Clerk’s Office is directed to send a courtesy copy of this order by e-mail to 4 | Mr. Jones at his e-mail address in the record ([email protected]). 5 IT |S SO ORDERED. 6 7 . Dated: July 22, 2025 ( q iy S GHI 500 KIM 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 csk/payt1886.23 pl-mtc-depo 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28