McElroy v. Gustafson et al

Filing 40

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/25/13 granting 39 Motion to conduct plaintiff's deposition via videoconference. Nothing in thiss order shall be interpreted as requiring the institution in which plaintiff is housed to obtain video conferencing equipment if it is not already available. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LATHAHN MCELROY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:12-cv-1518-TLN-EFB P

v.

ORDER

GUSTAFSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Defendants have requested the court to issue an order allowing them to conduct plaintiff’s

17
18

deposition, which is scheduled for December 3, 2013 at Salinas Valley State Prison, via video

19

conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4). ECF No. 39. Under Rule

20

30(b)(4) “[t]he parties may stipulate--or the court may on motion order--that a deposition be taken

21

by telephone or other remote means.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4). Defendants claim that because

22

plaintiff is proceeding pro se and is currently incarcerated, plaintiff “is not reasonably available to

23

stipulate to conduct the deposition via video conference.” ECF No. 39 at 1. Defendants further

24

claim that taking plaintiff’s deposition via video conference would prevent “the unnecessary time

25

and expense that would be required if defendants’ counsel conducted plaintiff’s deposition in

26

person.” Id. at 1-2.

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

Good cause appearing, defendants’ request to conduct plaintiff’s deposition via video

2

conference is GRANTED. Nothing in this Order shall be interpreted as requiring the institution

3

in which Plaintiff is housed to obtain video conferencing equipment if it is not already available.

4

DATED: November 25, 2013.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2