Guillen v. Owens et al

Filing 85

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw Request for Deposition of Defendants Owens, Crabrtree, Berger, Renault and Carrillo, doc. 70, is GRANTED. The Motion for Leave to Conduct Deposition of Defendant Ryan, doc. 67, is DENIED. (See document for full details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 6/27/11.(LAD)

1
2

WO

3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Karl Louis Guillen,

10

Plaintiff,

11

vs.

12

Quincy Owens, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 10-0226 PHX-JWS (LOA)
ORDER

This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw Request for Depositions Until
Receipt of Discovery. (Doc. 70)
On April 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Depose Defendants Ryan,

18

Owens, Crabtree, Renault, Berger and Carrillo. (Doc. 67) On May 5, 2011, Defendants

19

filed a Response, arguing that there are no “exceptional circumstances” as required by this

20

Court. (Doc. 69) Defendants further argued that Plaintiff has not shown the ability to bear

21

the costs of a deposition. (Doc. 69) Following that Response, Plaintiff filed the pending

22

motion to withdraw his request to depose Defendants Owens, Crabtree, Berger, Renault and

23

Carrillo. However, Plaintiff still seeks leave to depose Defendant Ryan.

24

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw the request to depose Defendants

25

Owens, Crabtree, Berger, Renault and Carrillo. As set forth below, the Court will deny

26

Plaintiff’s motion to depose Defendant Ryan.

27
28

In the Scheduling and Discovery Order, the Court advised Plaintiff that due to “the
logistical problems involved, self-represented incarcerated parties may not take oral

1

depositions without prior Court permission. Such permission will not be granted except

2

upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.” (Doc. 55) Plaintiff argues that exceptional

3

circumstances exist, “including but not limited to evasive official responses in previous

4

correspondence . . . .” (Doc. 70) Plaintiff does not explain the evasive responses or explain

5

why such responses constitute an exceptional circumstance. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s use of

6

the phrase “including but not limited to . . .” suggests that there might be other

7

circumstances which would warrant deposing Defendant Ryan. They are not, however,

8

listed and therefore not evaluated by the Court. Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion

9

to depose Defendant Ryan. The Court notes that because Ryan is a party to this action,

10

Plaintiff can obtain discovery through other means in accordance with the Federal Rules of

11

Civil Procedure, such as interrogatories. See FED.R.CIV.P. Rule 26, 33.

12

Because Plaintiff has not established exceptional circumstances supporting his

13

motion to depose Defendant Ryan, and Plaintiff may obtain discovery through other means

14

in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court will deny the Motion for

15

Leave to Depose Defendant Ryan.

16

Accordingly,

17

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw Request for Deposition of

18

Defendants Owens, Crabrtree, Berger, Renault and Carrillo, doc. 70, is GRANTED. The

19

Motion for Leave to Conduct Deposition of Defendant Ryan, doc. 67, is DENIED.

20

DATED this 27th day of June, 2011.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-