McCoy v. Kelso, et al.

Filing 197

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Conduct Depositions by Written Questions 171 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/7/2019. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH RAYMOND MCCOY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. STRONACH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT DEPOSITIONS BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS [ECF No. 171] action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct depositions by written 19 20 Case No.: 1:12-cv-000983-AWI-SAB (PC) Plaintiff Joseph Raymond McCoy is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) questions, filed September 30, 2019. 21 I. 22 BACKGROUND After this Court granted summary judgment to Defendants based on a failure to exhaust the 23 24 administrative remedies, Plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 25 The Ninth Circuit found in favor of Plaintiff on the exhaustion issue, and remanded the case back to 26 this Court. 27 /// 28 1 This action is proceeding against Defendants Stronach, Gonzales, LeMay, Beltran, Fisher, 1 2 Snell and Tann for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth 3 Amendment. 4 On April 25, 2019, the Court issued an amended scheduling order. (ECF No. 129.) 5 As previously stated, on September 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to conduct 6 depositions by written questions. Defendants filed an opposition on October 21, 2019. The Court 7 deems the matter suitable without a reply pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). 8 II. 9 DISCUSSION AND ORDER 10 There is no entitlement to take a deposition and to do so, a party must comply with the Federal 11 Rules of Civil Procedure. Depositions by written questions entail more than mailing questions to the 12 deponents and awaiting their written responses. Rather, an officer must be retained to take responses 13 and prepare the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(b). Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, and his motion 14 does not suggest an understanding of the requirements for conducting a deposition by written questions 15 or the ability and willingness to pay an officer to take the responses for the record. Furthermore, 16 discovery closed in this matter on October 2, 2019, with the exception of Plaintiff’s deposition. (ECF 17 No. 177.) In addition, Plaintiff seeks more than ten depositions in violation of Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 30(a)(2). Moreover, Plaintiff seeks to depose non-parties, who must be subpoenaed under 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. Lastly, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause to take any of the 20 depositions by written questions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(2)(B). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to 21 conduct depositions by written questions is (ECF No. 171) is DENIED. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: 25 November 7, 2019 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?