Sargent et al v. Simoneta et al
Filing
44
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 7/28/2011. To extent plaintiffs are requesting a Protective Order, they have not shown good cause. Therefore, the Request is DENIED without prejudice. (Marciel, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GARY L. SARGENT, et al.,
12
13
No. CIV S-10-1420-CMK
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
14
PAUL SIMONETA, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
/
17
Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
18
§ 1983. Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case is before the undersigned as the
19
presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
20
Pending before the court is plaintiffs’ request for assistance regarding a notice of
21
deposition received from the defense. Plaintiff Atterbury indicates he has received a notice of
22
deposition, setting his deposition in Napa, California for August 2, 2011. He states he was not
23
asked prior to setting the deposition, indicates he will have nothing to add beyond what was
24
stated in his complaint, and he is unable to sit for long periods of time. Plaintiff does not provide
25
a copy of the notice of deposition, but does indicate the deposition was noticed to be conducted
26
at Sims & Sims Deposition Reporters.
1
1
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide the parties to take deposition by oral
2
examination. See Rule 30. The deposition of a party may be noticed wherever the deposing
3
party designates, subject to the court’s power to grant a protective order. See Rule 30(b). “A
4
district court has wide discretion to establish the time and place of depositions.” Hyde & Drath
5
v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1994). A party may move for a protective order to be
6
protected “from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . .” Rule
7
26(c). The court may grant such a protective order for good cause, specifying the time and place
8
of a deposition. See id. The party seeking a protective order has the burden of showing that
9
“good cause” exists for the order. See Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476
10
(9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the moving party must submit “a particular and specific
11
demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.” Gulf Oil
12
Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 102n.16 (1981) (citations omitted).
13
Plaintiff has not requested a protective order, nor has he provided good cause for
14
the court to issue such an order. Plaintiff resides in Napa, and defense counsel has arranged to
15
have plaintiff’s deposition take place in Napa instead of requesting plaintiff travel to Redding to
16
participate in a deposition. As the filing before the court is not an actual request for protective
17
order, there is insufficient information contained therein for the court to render an opinion to
18
extent plaintiff indicates an inability to sit for extended periods of time. Generally, depositions
19
are fairly informal, and can be conducted to sufficiently accommodate a party’s inability to sit,
20
such as allowing plaintiff to stand as needed. Depositions are routinely used as part of any civil
21
action, and are not intended to trick or pressure a pro se party. The court cannot provide further
22
guidance to the plaintiffs as to how to conduct their own deposition. If plaintiffs are unsure how
23
to proceed, they may consider obtaining the services or advice of an attorney.
24
///
25
///
26
///
2
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that to the extent plaintiffs are
2
requesting a protective order, plaintiffs have not shown good cause for such an order and that
3
request is therefore denied without prejudice.
4
5
6
7
DATED: July 28, 2011
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
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?