Ahdom v. Lopez et al
Filing
164
ORDER Granting Defendant Ashby's Motion To Take Deposition Of Plaintiff Bilal Adhom, A Prisoner (ECF No. 159 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/7/2015. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
BILAL AHDOM,
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
S. LOPEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
17
I.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:09-cv-01874-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
ASHBY’S MOTION TO TAKE
DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF BILAL
ADHOM, A PRISONER
(ECF No. 159)
Introduction
18
Plaintiff Bilal Ahdom (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
19
pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds on
20
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Schaefer, Araich, Chen, Shittu, and Ashby for Eighth
21
Amendment deliberate indifference.
Currently before the Court is Defendant Ashby’s motion to take the deposition of
22
23
Plaintiff, filed on November 6, 2015 with a supporting memorandum of points and authorities.
24
(ECF No. 159.) Plaintiff’s response to this motion was due on or before November 30, 2015. As
25
of the date of this order, no response was filed, and the motion is now deemed submitted. Local
26
Rule 230(l).
27
II.
28
Discussion
Defendant Ashby moves for leave to depose Plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
1
1
Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (a)(2)(B). Defendant Ashby explains that he requires leave of
2
court to depose Plaintiff because Plaintiff is a prisoner who has already been deposed in this
3
matter. However, at the time of Plaintiff’s prior deposition, Defendant Ashby was not yet
4
represented and had not yet appeared in this case. Therefore, Defendant Ashby argues that good
5
cause exists to allow him to depose Plaintiff.
6
A.
7
In order to take a deposition of a deponent who has already been deposed, leave of court
8
is required, and “the court must grant leave to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(2).” Fed. R.
9
Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii). “Repeat depositions are not favored, except in certain circumstances,
Standard
10
some of which include a long passage of time with new evidence, or where an amended
11
complaint has added new theories.” Kress v. Price Waterhouse Coopers, No. CIV S-08-0965
12
LKK, 2011 WL 5241852, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2011) (citing Graebner v. James River
13
Corporation, 130 F.R.D. 440, 441 (N.D. Cal. 1990)). Thus, good cause for a repeated deposition
14
“exists where new claims or defenses have been added, new parties have been added, and new
15
documents have been produced.” Id. (internal citations omitted). “Courts may limit the scope of
16
the second deposition to matters not covered in the first deposition.” Id.
17
B.
18
Defendant Ashby has shown good cause for taking Plaintiff’s deposition in this case,
Analysis
19
despite the fact that Plaintiff was previously deposed. The parties litigated the case for over three
20
months before Defendant Ashby appeared through counsel. Defendant Ashby immediately filed
21
a motion to dismiss, and did not take discovery during the pendency of that motion, as the claims
22
and parties were not yet finalized. (ECF No. 66.) Now that all of the Defendants’ motions to
23
dismiss in this case have been decided, Defendant Ashby seeks to depose Plaintiff on the
24
finalized complaint. Since Defendant Ashby seeks to depose Plaintiff on matters specifically
25
pertaining to him that were not addressed in the previous deposition, this second deposition will
26
neither be cumulative nor overly burdensome. Moreover, Defendant Ashby would be prejudiced
27
if he is not able to depose Plaintiff on the matters related to the claims and allegations
28
specifically being made against him.
2
1
III.
Conclusion and Order
2
Accordingly it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Ashby’s motion for leave of court
3
to depose Plaintiff is GRANTED. Defendant Ashby may notice Plaintiff for a second deposition,
4
which shall be limited to areas related to claims against Defendant Ashby.
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
December 7, 2015
8
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?