Leonard v. Denny, et al

Filing 89

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 07/20/16 ordering defendants shall have until 7/22/16 to file a notice with the court advising whether plaintiff's deposition took place and was completed as scheduled on 07/12/16 or whether the deposition still needs to be completed. Plaintiff's request for blank subpoena forms 88 is denied as moot. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID G. LEONARD,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:12-cv-0915 TLN AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

JIM DENNY, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a former county and current state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this action. Currently before the court are plaintiff’s objections to the taking of his

19

deposition as noticed (ECF No. 87) and second request for blank subpoena forms (ECF No. 88).

20

Plaintiff objects to the taking of his deposition as noticed on the grounds that the notice

21

requests that plaintiff be placed in restraints during the deposition and that the notice indicates a

22

potential for exceeding the “one day of seven hours” limitation set by Federal Rule of Civil

23

Procedure 30(d)(1). ECF No. 87. Plaintiff avers that given his history and current custody level,

24

the use of restraints is unnecessary and “overly oppressive, punitive, and harassing in nature.” Id.

25

at 1. He further states that he “does not object to a reasonable deposition, however, he objects to

26

the NOTICE as served.” Id. at 2. According to the notice of deposition plaintiff has attached to

27

his motion, his deposition was scheduled to take place on July 12, 2016. Id. at 6-7. The court did

28

not receive the motion until after that date. Counsel for defendants will therefore be required to
1

1

file a notice with the court advising whether plaintiff’s deposition took place and was completed

2

as scheduled or whether they still need to complete plaintiff’s deposition.

3

With respect to plaintiff’s request for blank subpoena forms (ECF No. 88), this request

4

will be denied as moot because the court has already directed the Clerk of Court to send plaintiff

5

the requested forms (ECF No. 86).

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. Defendants shall have until July 22, 2016, to file a notice with the court advising

8

whether plaintiff’s deposition took place and was completed as scheduled on July 12, 2016, or

9

whether the deposition still needs to be completed.

10
11

2. Plaintiff’s request for blank subpoena forms (ECF No. 88) is denied as moot.
DATED: July 20, 2016

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2