Adams v. Yates et al

Filing 43

ORDER GRANTING 42 Defendants' Motion to Conduct Plaintiff's Deposition Via Videoconference signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/4/2013. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No. 1:10-cv-00671 AWI-MJS (PC)
RICKEY ADAMS,

12
13

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
Plaintiff, REQUEST TO CONDUCT PLAINTIFF’S
DEPOSITION VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE

v.

(ECF No. 42)

14
15

J. YATES, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
Plaintiff Rickey Adams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil

18
19

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20

Plaintiff initiated this action on August 13, 2009 in Fresno County Superior Court.

21

(ECF No. 1.) Defendants removed the action to this Court on April 15, 2010. (Id.) The

22

Court screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 33) and found that it

23

stated a cognizable claim (ECF No. 34). Plaintiff is currently proceeding on an Eighth

24
Amendment claim against Defendants Erickson, Rumbles, and Brumbaugh. (ECF No.
25
26

34.)

27

On April 12, 2013, Defendants Brumbaugh, Erickson, and Rumbles filed a request

28

to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition via videoconference. (ECF No. 42.) Pursuant to Fed. R.
1

1

Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(B), if the proposed deponent is confined in prison, a party must obtain

2

leave of court and the court must grant leave to the extent consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P.

3

26(b)(2). This request is necessary because Plaintiff is currently confined in Lancaster

4
State Prison in Lancaster, California.
5
Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(B), the Court hereby GRANTS

6
7

Defendants Erickson, Rumbles, and Brumbaugh’s request to conduct Plaintiff’s

8

deposition via videoconference.

9
10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
Dated:

15
16
17

May 4, 2013

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC _Signature- END:

ci4d6

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2