Aubert v. Elijah et al
Filing
58
ORDER Granting in Part Defendants' Motion for Leave to Conduct Depositions by Videoconference 55 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/10/11. (Verduzco, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO CONDUCT DEPOSITIONS BY
VIDEOCONFERENCE
Plaintiff,
13
14
1:07-cv-01629-LJO-GSA-PC
ESS’NN A. AUBERT,
v.
KEVIN ELIJAH, et al.,
15
(Doc. 55)
Defendants.
/
16
17
I.
BACKGROUND
18
Plaintiff Ess’nn A. Aubert, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with
19
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this
20
action on November 8, 2007. (Doc. 1.) On May 5, 2011, the Court issued a scheduling order
21
establishing pre-trial deadlines in this action. (Doc. 20.) This action is currently in the discovery
22
phase, and on June 23, 2011, Defendants filed a motion pursuant to Rule 30(b)(4) seeking leave to
23
conduct depositions of Plaintiff and all witnesses by videoconference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4).
24
II.
RULE 30(b)(4) - DEPOSITION BY REMOTE MEANS
25
Rule 30(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he parties may
26
stipulate--or the court may on motion order--that a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote
27
means.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4). Defendants request leave to conduct the deposition of Plaintiff,
28
and all witnesses, via videoconference, due to budgetary conditions. Defendants seek to eliminate
1
1
unnecessary travel expenses which would be incurred if defense counsel is required to travel to
2
Corcoran, California, where Plaintiff is incarcerated, to take Plaintiff’s deposition. Defendants also
3
assert that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is operating under severe
4
financial constraints, which limit its travel expenditures.
5
Defendants have presented good cause to take Plaintiff’s deposition by videoconference.
6
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran,
7
California, and is unable to easily travel to another location for a deposition. Counsel for Defendants
8
assert that they are located “approximately 235 miles away” in Sacramento, California, and would
9
incur considerable travel expenses to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition in Corcoran. (Motion, Doc. 55
10
at 1:22-23.) Therefore, Defendants’ request shall be granted with respect to Plaintiff’s deposition.
11
However, the Court declines to grant blanket permission to conduct all depositions of witnesses in
12
this case by videoconference. Depositions by remote means may not be acceptable under all
13
circumstances, and Defendants have not addressed the circumstances of individual witnesses, besides
14
Plaintiff, they seek to depose.
15
III.
16
17
18
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ request to conduct
depositions by videoconference is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:
1.
19
20
Good cause appearing, Defendants’ request for leave to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition
by videoconference pursuant to Rule 30(b)(4) is GRANTED; and
2.
21
Defendants’ request for leave to conduct depositions of other witnesses in this case
by videoconference is DENIED, without prejudice.
22
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij
August 10, 2011
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?