Strong v. Elliot

Filing 36

ORDER on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendants to Provide Traveling Expenses re 31 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/7/11. (Gonzalez, R)

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
14
15
16

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

Plaintiff,

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO PROVIDE
TRAVELING EXPENSES

vs.
KENNETH ELLIOTT,

(Doc. 31)

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 11, 2011, the Court ordered Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion and to

25

explain therein whether the deposition could be taken remotely and, if not, why the deposition should

26

take place in Sacramento. (Doc. 32.) Defendant responded that he is unwilling to take the deposition

27

telephonically because he would be unable to see Plaintiff’s physical expressions; that he is unwilling

28

to take the deposition by video-conferencing because he is unaware of any location that is equipped for
1

1

video-conferencing and available to Plaintiff; and that in either scenario he would be prejudiced by his

2

inability to access and examine any documents Plaintiff might rely on during the deposition. (Doc. 33

3

at 3.) As a compromise, Defendant suggests that Plaintiff’s deposition be conducted in-person at the

4

U.S. District Court in Fresno, California. (Id.)

5

Pursuant to court order, Plaintiff filed a declaration in reply on September 6, 2011. (Doc. 35.)

6

Plaintiff indicates in his declaration that his parole agent would permit Plaintiff to travel outside a 50-

7

mile radius of his current location if she is provided with the specific location and time which Plaintiff

8

is expected to travel. (Id. at 1-2.) However, Plaintiff also provides a letter from his wife, who is the sole

9

provider in the household, stating that she is unable to afford the traveling expenses associated with a

10

deposition in Sacramento or Fresno. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff indicates that a round-trip fare from Ontario

11

Airport to Sacramento would cost approximately $350. (Id. at 3.)

12

Upon careful consideration of the parties’ positions, the Court concludes that an appropriate

13

location for Plaintiff’s deposition is in the vicinity of the U.S. District Court in Bakersfield,

14

California.1 Defendants will need to secure a location for the deposition in Bakersfield and SHALL

15

confer with Plaintiff to determine an appropriate date and starting time for the deposition so that Plaintiff

16

can travel to and from the deposition on one day.

17
18
19
20

Plaintiff SHALL contact his parole agent and secure permission to travel to Bakersfield on the
agreed upon date.
The parties are firmly cautioned that failure to comply with this order may result in
sanctions, which in Plaintiff’s case, includes a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: September 7, 2011
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

1

According to the Court’s own research into this matter, Plaintiff may secure relatively inexpensive transportation
between Victorville and Bakersfield via Amtrak or Greyhound. Moreover, the train and bus schedules are such that Plaintiff
will not need to secure overnight accommodations.

2