Calloway v. Veal et al

Filing 37

ORDER GRANTING IN PART Defendants' 32 Motion for Leave to Conduct Depositions by Video Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/10/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JASIMI JERMAINE CALLOWAY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:08-cv-01896-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO CONDUCT DEPOSITIONS BY
VIDEOCONFERENCE

v.
WARDEN M. VEAL, et al.,

(Doc. 32.)
15

Defendants.
/

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Plaintiff Jasimi Jermaine Calloway, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

19

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 10, 2008, and a scheduling

20

order was issued on June 14, 2011. This action is currently in the discovery phase, and on June 16,

21

2011, Defendants filed a motion pursuant to Rule 30(b)(4) seeking leave to conduct depositions of

22

Plaintiff and all witnesses by videoconference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4).

23

II.

RULE 30(b)(4) - DEPOSITION BY REMOTE MEANS

24

Rule 30(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he parties may

25

stipulate--or the court may on motion order--that a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote

26

means.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4). Defendants request leave to conduct the deposition of Plaintiff,

27

and all witnesses, via videoconference, due to budgetary conditions. Defendants seek to eliminate

28

unnecessary travel expenses which would be incurred if defense counsel is required to travel to
1

1

Delano, where Plaintiff is incarcerated, to take Plaintiff’s deposition. Defendants also assert that the

2

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is operating under severe financial

3

constraints, which limit its travel expenditures.

4

Defendants have presented good cause to take Plaintiff’s deposition by videoconference.

5

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison, in Delano, California, and is unable

6

to easily travel for a deposition. Counsel for Defendants are located in Sacramento, California, and

7

would incur travel expenses to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition in Delano. Therefore, Defendants’

8

request shall be granted with respect to Plaintiff’s deposition. However, the Court declines to grant

9

blanket permission to conduct all depositions of witnesses in this case by videoconference.

10

Depositions by remote means may not be acceptable under all circumstances, and Defendants have

11

not addressed the circumstances of individual witnesses, besides Plaintiff, they seek to depose.

12

III.

13
14
15

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.

16
17

Good cause appearing, Defendants’ request for leave to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition
by videoconference pursuant to Rule 30(b)(4) is GRANTED; and

2.

18

Defendants’ request for leave to conduct depositions of other witnesses in this case
by videoconference is DENIED, without prejudice.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

August 10, 2011

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2