Thomas v. Ravera, et al.

Filing 33

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/8/2017 DENYING 32 Motion for deposition by phone. (York, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

REAGAN THOMAS,

12

No. 2:15-cv-1936 KJM AC P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

RAVERA, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

17
18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion for deposition by phone. ECF

19

No. 32. In the motion, Plaintiff states that he does not have the funds to conduct a traditional

20

deposition and asks that he be allowed to conduct an oral deposition by phone and have it

21

recorded. Id.
A deposition must be conducted before an officer authorized to administer oaths or a

22
23

person appointed by the court to administer oaths and take testimony, unless the parties stipulate

24

otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(a), 30(a)(5)(A). It appears that plaintiff is seeking leave to simply

25

record himself questioning defendant Rivera by telephone. This does not satisfy the requirements

26

of a deposition and the request will be denied.

27

////

28

////
1

If plaintiff is able to secure the services of an officer1 for the deposition, the court will

1
2

consider a request to allow the deposition to be taken by telephone.2 However, the court will not

3

order an officer to provide his or her services without compensation. Nor will the court require

4

defendant to stipulate to allowing the deposition to taken before by an individual who is not an

5

officer authorized to administer oaths or a person appointed by the court to administer oaths and

6

take testimony.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for deposition by phone

8

(ECF No. 32) is DENIED.

9

DATED: December 8, 2017

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

“The term ‘officer’ . . . includes a person appointed by the court under this rule or designated by
the parties under Rule 29(a).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(a)(2).
2
Although plaintiff has expressed reservations about conducting a deposition by written
questions, the court will also consider allowing plaintiff to conduct the deposition in this manner.
However, a deposition by written question also requires the services of an officer. Fed. R. Civ. P.
31(b).
2