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)

Download PDF
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?