Guerrero v. McClure et al

Filing 50

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/02/11 denying 48 Motion to conduct plaintiff's deposition via videoconference. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JAMES ANTHONY GUERRERO,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-10-0318 GEB DAD P

vs.
S. McCLURE, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant

17

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Ferguson, Fecht, Fox and Montes, represented by Deputy

18

Attorney General Michelle Angus, have requested an order under Rule 30(b)(4) of the Federal

19

Rules of Civil Procedure allowing the deposition of plaintiff to be taken via video-conference.

20

Defendants assert that plaintiff is incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment

21

Facility and California State Prison - Corcoran.1

22

In the court’s order, filed on September 29, 2011, defendants were granted leave

23

to depose plaintiff “as set forth in the court’s June 29, 2010 discovery and scheduling order.” In

24

that same order November 18, 2011, was set as the deadline for conducting the deposition and

25
1

26

The court has been advised that video-conferencing is unavailable at this time at both of
these institutions.
1

1

for filing a motion to compel discovery. In the court’s June 29, 2010 order, the court granted

2

defendants leave to depose plaintiff so long as fourteen days notice was provided to plaintiff.

3

See Order (Doc. No. 17) at 5. Therefore, defendants’ request for a court order is unnecessary.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ November 2, 2011

5

request to conduct plaintiff’s deposition via videoconference (Doc. No. 48) is denied as

6

unnecessary.

7

DATED: November 2, 2011.

8
9
10

DAD:4
guer0318.depo

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2