Samuels v. Adame et al

Filing 32

ORDER Denying Motion for Leave to Depose Non-Defendants by Written Question 31 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/6/11. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ROBERT EARL SAMUELS, CASE NO. 1:09-CV-01320-DLB PC 9 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DEPOSE NON-DEFENDANTS BY WRITTEN QUESTION 10 Plaintiff, v. 11 G. ADAME, et al., 12 (DOC. 31) Defendants. 13 / 14 15 Plaintiff Robert Earl Samuels (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 16 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 17 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding 18 against Defendants G. Adame, C. Farnsworth, P. Gentry, B. Medrano, R. Nicholas, F. Rivera, E. 19 Sailer, and D. Snyder. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to take non-defendants’ 20 deposition by written question, filed June April 5, 2011. Doc. 31. Plaintiff requests that the 21 Court grant Plaintiff leave to take five non-defendants’ deposition by written question, pursuant 22 to Rule 31(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 23 Plaintiff’s motion is denied. A party requires the Court’s leave to take deposition by 24 written question “if the parties have not stipulated to the deposition and: (i) the deposition would 25 result in more than 10 depositions being taken under this rule or Rule 30 . . .; (ii) the deponent 26 has already been deposed in the case; or (iii) the party seeks to take a deposition before the time 27 specified in Rule 26(d).” It is unclear what Defendants’ position is regarding stipulating to such 28 deposition. 1 1 However, Plaintiff does not comply with proper procedure to depose non-defendants by 2 written question. Pursuant to Rule 31(b), Plaintiff is required to deliver to the deposition officer 3 a copy of the questions to be served and the notice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(b). There is no mention 4 of a deposition officer. Plaintiff contends that he does not have the finances to directly contact 5 these non-defendants. Even though Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court has no 6 authority to grant Plaintiff funds for conducting discovery. The expenditure of public funds on 7 behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress. Tedder v. Odel, 890 8 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (citations omitted). 9 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave of the Court to 10 take deposition by written question, filed April 5, 2011, is DENIED. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 6, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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?