Bradford v. Ogbuehi

Filing 126

ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's 124 Objections to Order Denying his Motion to Compel signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 06/03/2021.(Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 v. C. OGBUEHI, et al. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:17-cv-01128-SAB (PC) ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO ORDER DENYING HIS MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF No. 124) Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed objections to the Court’s May 20, 2021 order denying his 17 motion to compel. (ECF No. 124.) Plaintiff contends that he should be allowed to appear 18 telephonically at his deposition and the Court should order the return of his legal and personal 19 property. Plaintiff’s objections must be overruled. 20 With regard to Plaintiff’s access to his property, the Court’s May 20, 2021 order specifically 21 stated that Defendants have agreed to provide Plaintiff with copies of all written discovery that has 22 been exchanged to date. (ECF No. 116 at 2.) Further, as Plaintiff was previously advised, “Plaintiff’s 23 vague claim that he does not have access to his legal property, alone, does not relieve him of his obligation 24 to participate in his deposition. Plaintiff fails to set forth what and why access to his legal property is 25 necessary to participate in his deposition. . . . There is no indication in the instant motion that a lack of 26 legal documentation or preparation will prevent Plaintiff from being deposed.” (ECF No. 108 at 3-4.) 27 Moreover, Plaintiff’s deposition has yet to be re-set and there is no request for Plaintiff to produce 28 documents at such deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(2). Plaintiff is further 1 1 advised that he is not entitled to free copies from the Court, and the Court will not provide him a free 2 copy of the entire docket in this case. The Clerk charges $.50 per page for copies of documents. See 28 3 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Copies of up to twenty pages may be made by the Clerk's Office at this court upon 4 written request and prepayment of the copy fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2250, the Clerk is not required to 5 furnish copies without cost to an indigent petitioner except by order of the judge. To request copies of 6 his Complaint at this juncture, Plaintiff must submit a request in writing to the Clerk, a large self- 7 addressed envelope affixed with sufficient postage, and prepayment of copy costs to the Clerk. With regard to Plaintiff’s request to be deposed by telephone, Rule 30(b)(4) allows depositions 8 9 to “be taken by telephone or other remote means.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4). The Court authorizes the 10 use of remote depositions by videoconference in this action, which will help secure a “just, speedy, 11 and inexpensive determination.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; ECF No. 66 at ¶ 3); see also Velicer v. Falconhead 12 Capital LLC, No. C19-1505 JLR, 2020 WL 1847773, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 13, 2020) (finding no 13 good cause to extend scheduling order deadlines by ninety days and urging the parties to consider 14 remote depositions); Sinceno v. Riverside Church in City of New York, No. 18-CV-2156 (LJL), 2020 15 WL 1302053, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2020) (authorizing remote depositions “[i]n order to protect 16 public health while promoting the ‘just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and 17 proceeding’ ” (citation omitted)). Here, Defendants have indicated that when Plaintiff’s deposition is re-set it will conducted by 18 19 videoconference. (ECF No. 116 at 2.) While Plaintiff may prefer to be deposed telephonically, the 20 Court finds no basis to order Defendants to conduct the deposition telephonically, absent a stipulation 21 to do so. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s objections to the Court’s May 20, 2021 order are overruled. 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: 26 June 3, 2021 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?