Derek Tate, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, faced a double setback in discovery disputes with defendant Tiara Calamia in the Eastern District of California. The case centers on Tate's claims against Calamia under the First and Eighth Amendments, with discovery originally set to close in November 2025 but extended to January 2026 at Tate's request.
Judge Delaney granted Calamia's motion to compel Tate's deposition after he appeared for the January 26, 2026 session but refused to proceed, claiming he wouldn't have time to amend the transcript before dispositive motions were due. 'To proceed with this action, plaintiff must cooperate in discovery, including being deposed,' Delaney wrote, finding that 'the factors of timeliness, good cause, utility, and materiality weigh in favor of granting the motion to compel plaintiff's deposition.'
The judge issued a stern warning about Tate's cooperation going forward, writing that 'if he again refuses to subject himself to deposition, the court will consider the sanction of dismissing this action pursuant to Rule 37.' While denying Calamia's request for monetary sanctions due to Tate's indigent status, Delaney gave Tate 30 days to complete his deposition.
The case has been pending since 2023, with a Discovery and Scheduling Order issued in July 2025 that initially set the discovery cutoff for November 21, 2025. After Tate requested an extension, the deadline was moved to January 31, 2026, and the dispositive motion deadline was later extended to July 1, 2026 to accommodate the delayed deposition.
Tate's own motion to compel discovery responses failed spectacularly, with the judge rejecting his argument that he should be allowed 47 interrogatories instead of the standard 25-question limit. Tate had argued that since he submitted the questions as one set rather than two, and given his pro se status, the court should treat his submission liberally as two separate sets of interrogatories totaling 47 questions.
Judge Delaney firmly rejected this reasoning, quoting a 2015 Eastern District of California decision that 'plaintiff's pro se status, moreover, is not a free pass for discovery rules to be relaxed in his favor.' The court also found Tate's motion procedurally defective because he 'fails to address defendant's objections in the context of each interrogatory' rather than simply asserting dissatisfaction with the responses.
The judge noted that Tate took issue with what he called the 'boilerplate nature' of Calamia's responses to 15 specific interrogatories, but after reviewing each response individually, Delaney concluded they were 'appropriate and proper.' The court emphasized that pro se litigants cannot simply assert general dissatisfaction without addressing specific objections to each discovery request.
With discovery now closed except for Tate's deposition, the case moves toward dispositive motions with a July 1, 2026 deadline. The ruling demonstrates the challenges faced by pro se prisoners in federal civil rights litigation, where procedural compliance remains mandatory despite their lack of legal training.