Campbell v. Beard et al
Filing
54
ORDER DENYING 53 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Third-Party Witness to Attend Deposition by Telephone signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/22/2016. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANTHONY TYRONE CAMPBELL, SR.
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL THIRD-PARTY WITNESS TO ATTEND
DEPOSITION BY TELEPHONE
[ECF No. 53]
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel third-party witness, Dr. David
19
20
Case No.:1:14-cv-00801-DAD-SAB (PC)
Plaintiff Anthony Tyrone Campbell Sr. is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Rohrdanz, to attend a deposition by telephone. Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.
21
Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient justification for the requested deposition of Dr. David
22
Rohrdanz, and his motion for leave to conduct such depositions must be denied. In addition, Plaintiff
23
has not stated how he will pay for the deposition costs and non-party witness fees pursuant to Rule 45
24
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and there is no stipulation by Defendants to produce the
25
witness identified by Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff is required to pay for the recording of the
26
depositions pursuant to Rule 30, and Plaintiff provides no indication that he can pay such expenses.
27
///
28
///
1
1
Although Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, such status does not entitle him to waiver of
2
witness fees, mileage or deposition officer fees. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied
3
without prejudice.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
Dated:
7
March 22, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
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?