Robert R. Estrada v. James K. Rowland J.S. Stainer R. Haase S. Sosa M. Melgado Garcia and N. Haywood

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that when a pro se party attended his deposition but refused to testify, “the proper remedy is a court order to testify under Rule 37(a), and not dismissal under Rule 37(b)(2)(C)”
• finding that attending a deposition but refusing to testify is not 21 a “failure to appear” for the purposes of Rule 37(d)
• endorsing strict construction of “failure to appear” to 8 refer to circumstances where deponent literally fails to physically show up for a properly noticed 9 deposition
• deponent was plaintiff pursuing action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S 1983 against prison officials
• “Estrada attended his deposition but refused to testify. This is not a ‘failure to appear’ for the purposes of Rule 37(d).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).