Strong v. Elliot

Filing 34

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to File a Reply to 33 Opposition, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/19/2011. Reply Due Within Fourteen (14) Days of the Date of This Order. (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 PLAINTIFF TO FILE A
REPLY

vs.
(Doc. 33)

14
15
16

KENNETH ELLIOTT,
Defendant.
/

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

costs of attending his deposition, which was 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. (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 officer. (Id. at 3.)

24

On August 17, 2011, Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. 33.) Defendant

25

explains that he is unwilling to take the deposition telephonically because he would be unable to see

26

Plaintiff’s physical expressions on the phone. (Id. at 3.) Defendant also explains that he is unwilling

27

to take the deposition by video-conferencing because he is unaware of any location that is equipped for

28

video-conferencing and available to Plaintiff. (Id.) Lastly, Defendant notes that in both scenarios he
1

1

would be disadvantaged because he would not be able to access and examine any documents Plaintiff

2

might rely on during the deposition. (Id.) As a compromise, Defendant indicates his willingness to

3

conduct the deposition in person at the Eastern District Court in Fresno.1 (Id.)

4

The Court will require Plaintiff to file a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date of this

5

order. Plaintiff shall explain whether or not it is feasible for him to travel to Fresno, California for his

6

deposition.2 If Plaintiff maintains that it is not feasible, he shall provide information on his financial

7

status (employment, sources of income, etc.), including information on how he is currently supporting

8

himself in terms of food and shelter. In addition, Plaintiff shall provide a letter from his parole officer

9

indicating that Plaintiff has sought permission to travel to Fresno for his deposition and that his parole

10

officer has granted or denied the request. Plaintiff is firmly cautioned that his failure to file a reply

11

in accordance with this order may result in the Court ordering the deposition to occur in Fresno

12

or other convenient location or an order of sanctions, including a recommendation that this case

13

be dismissed.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 19, 2011
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

The parties are advised that absent exceptional circumstances, not found here, the courthouse is not available for
depositions.
2

28

A round-trip fare from Victorville, California to Fresno, California via Greyhound would cost approximately

$140.00.

2