Garces v. Pickett et al

Filing 169

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 08/06/21 DENYING 168 Motion to depose defendants by written question. (Plummer, M)

Case 2:17-cv-00319-JAM-AC Document 169 Filed 08/09/21 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUIS MANUEL GARCES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

No. 2:17-cv-0319 JAM AC P

ORDER

J. PICKETT, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

18

§ 1983, has filed a motion for leave to depose defendants by written question. ECF No. 168.

19

With the exception of some limited aspects of discovery addressed in the parties’ motions to

20

compel, discovery in this matter closed on October 23, 2020. ECF No. 115. Plaintiff’s request to

21

depose defendants by written question is therefore untimely, and plaintiff offers no explanation

22

for its untimeliness. Furthermore, even if plaintiff’s had shown cause for his untimely request, he

23

would be responsible for setting up the depositions, including setting the date, time, and location

24

of the depositions, arranging for a court reporter, and paying any fees for the court reporter’s

25

services and the transcription of the depositions, see Matthews v. Puckett, 670 F. App’x 964, 965

26

(9th Cir. 2016) (upholding denial of request for additional copy of deposition transcript because

27

indigent plaintiff “must bear his own discovery costs” (citing Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211

28

(9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam))), and he has not shown that he is capable of doing so.
1

Case 2:17-cv-00319-JAM-AC Document 169 Filed 08/09/21 Page 2 of 2
1

For all these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to depose

2

defendants by written question, ECF No. 168, is DENIED.

3

DATED: August 6, 2021

4
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