Strong v. Elliot

Filing 32

ORDER Requiring Defendant to File a Response re 31 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/11/2011. RESPONSE Due Within Seven (7) Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE BERRY STRONG,

12
13

Case No. 1:09-cv-00583 AWI JLT (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO
FILE A RESPONSE

vs.
(Doc. 31)

14

KENNETH ELLIOTT,

15

Defendant.

16

/

17

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. On August 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant to pay the traveling

19

expense of attending his deposition, which is scheduled for August 18, 2011 in Sacramento, California.

20

(Doc. 31 at 1-2.) Plaintiff explains that he is currently a parolee without any income to afford the cost

21

of traveling from Victorville, California (his current location) to Sacramento.1 (Id. at 1-3.) In addition,

22

Plaintiff explains that as a parolee, he is unable to travel outside a 50-mile radius of his current location

23

without the permission of his parole agent. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff does not indicate that he has made any

24

efforts to obtain permission to travel beyond the 50-mile radius of Victorville for the purpose of

25

attending his deposition. (Doc. 31 at 3)

26

Plaintiff indicates that he has made an attempt to resolve this matter with defense counsel, but

27
1

28

Give Plaintiff claims to have no income, it is notable that Plaintiff provides no information as to how he is paying
for his basic necessities such as food, clothing and shelter.

1

1

counsel has rejected the idea of reimbursing Plaintiff for his traveling expenses or moving the venue of

2

the deposition outside the Eastern District of California. (See id. at 2.) Plaintiff cites no authority for

3

the proposition that in a civil lawsuit that he filed, that the defendant should be required to bear his costs

4

of attending his own deposition. Plaintiff seems unaware of the dire financial condition of the State of

5

California–in which attorneys employed by the State are limited in their ability to travel–and blithely

6

presumes that it, not him, should bear his costs in this civil action that he filed.

7

Nevertheless, in an attempt to come to a compromise, the Court will order Defendant to file a

8

response to Plaintiff’s motion within seven (7) days of the date of this order. In his response, Defendant

9

shall indicate whether he has objections to taking Plaintiff’s deposition upon written questions,

10

telephonically or by video-conferencing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4). If Defendant maintains his

11

preference for an in-person deposition, he shall set forth reasons why the deposition should take place

12

in Sacramento and why a protective order should not be issued. See Turner v. Prudential Ins. Co. of

13

Am., 119 F.R.D. 381, 383 (M.D.N.C. 1998) (the deposition of a party may be noticed wherever the

14

deposing party designates, subject to the court’s power to issue a protective order); Generale Bank

15

Nederland N.V. v. First Sterling Bank, No. CIV 97-2273, 1997 WL 778861, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 18,

16

1997) (“The Court has considerable discretion in determining the place of a deposition, may consider

17

the relative expense of the parties and may order that expenses be paid by the opposing party.”).

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated: August 11, 2011
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2