Smith v. Trujillo et al

Filing 178

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 10 May 2022. It is hereby ORDERED that: The Motion for Order Permitting Deposition of Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Joseph Smith 176 is GRANTED; Defendants MAY DEPOSE Plaintiff Joseph Smith, on or before June 6, 2022, for not more than one day of seven hours, via remote means. The deposition shall be conducted from USP Thomson, or, if Plaintiff is moved to a different facility subsequent to this Order and prior to the deposition, from Plaintiff' ;s new facility; and Defendants SHALL COORDINATE with Plaintiff's facility to schedule a time and date for Plaintiff's deposition and shall also coordinate with Plaintiff's facility to ensure the appropriate technology is in place to conduct the remote deposition.(cmadr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 20-cv-00877-RBJ-NYW
JOSEPH SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
LT. A. TRUJILLO,
GONZALEZ, S.I.S. TECHNICIAN, and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang
This matter is before the court on the Motion for Order Permitting Deposition of Federal
Bureau of Prisons Inmate Joseph Smith (the “Motion” or “Motion to Take Plaintiff’s Deposition”)
filed on May 5, 2022. [Doc. 176]. The court considers the Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
the Order Referring Case dated October 19, 2020 [Doc. 48], and the Memorandum dated May 9,
2022. [Doc. 176]. Upon review of the Motion and the applicable case law, the Motion to Take
Plaintiff’s Deposition is hereby GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
The court has previously discussed the factual background of this case in detail, see [Doc.
89], and will do so again here only as necessary for purposes of the instant Motion. Plaintiff Joseph
Smith (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Smith”) is currently incarcerated within the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) at United States Penitentiary, Thomson (“USP Thomson”) located in Thomson, Illinois.
See [Doc. 120 at 1]. Mr. Smith was previously housed at the BOP’s Federal Correctional
Institution Florence (“USP Florence”). [Doc. 21 at 3]. Mr. Smith alleges that while he was house

at USP Florence, he was subjected to the excessive use of force by Defendants Trujillo, Gonzalez,
and an unidentified correctional officer. [Id. at 7-9]. After disposition of Defendants’ Motion for
Dismissal in Part, see [Doc. 49], Plaintiff has two claims remaining in this action: (1) an Eighth
Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants Trujillo, Gonzalez, and an unidentified USP
Florence officer; and (2) an FTCA claim against the United States. See [Doc. 106]. This court
held a Status Conference on May 11, 2021, at which time the court set discovery deadlines in this
case. [Doc. 109]. Relevant here, discovery closes on June 6, 2022 and dispositive motions are
due July 8, 2022. [Doc. 144 at 1-2].
Defendants filed the instant Motion to Take Plaintiff’s Deposition on May 5, 2022. [Doc.
176]. In the Motion, Defendants request leave of court pursuant to Rule 30 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure to take the deposition of a deponent—Mr. Smith—who is confined in prison.
[Id. at ¶ 1]. Defendants suggest they intend to take Mr. Smith’s deposition remotely, acknowledge
that the discovery deadline remains June 6, 2022, and indicate that they intend to take Plaintiff’s
deposition prior to the close of discovery. [Id. at ¶¶ 2-3]. The court addresses Defendants’ request
below. 1
ANALYSIS
Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a party seeking to take a
deposition obtain leave of court if the requested deponent is confined in prison. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 30(a)(2)(B). The Federal Rules require that “the court must grant leave to the extent consistent
with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2),” i.e., the court must determine whether (1) the requested discovery is
relevant and proportional to the needs of the case, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (emphasis added),

1

Although Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion, the court may rule on the Motion without a
response from Plaintiff, see D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d), and finds it in the interest of judicial
economy to do so, given the upcoming discovery deadline.
2

and (2) the frequency and extent of the requested discovery is reasonable, or whether it is
unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, could be obtained from some other source that is more
convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive, or the requested discovery is outside the scope of
Rule 26(b)(1). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Stated another way, “[t]he language of Rule 30(a)(2)
requires the Court to authorize a deposition unless the deponent is seeking privileged, irrelevant,
or unnecessarily costly information.” McGinnis v. Huq, No. 16-cv-13461, 2017 WL 1044989, at
*1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 20, 2017) (emphasis in original).
The court concludes that a deposition of Plaintiff is likely to produce information that is
relevant to this case, is proportional to the needs of the case, and is reasonable in scope. Plaintiff
initiated this action and is a key witness in this case; indeed, he is one of a few individuals who
witnessed the events giving rise to this civil action. See [Doc. 89 at 2-3]. As such, “Plaintiff’s
testimony regarding the facts underlying his claims against Defendants is nonprivileged and
potentially relevant to both Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants’ defenses.” Garrett v. Deaz, No. cv12-00890-TUC-JGZ, 2016 WL 11678499, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 7, 2016); see also El-Massri v. New
Haven Corr. Ctr., No. 3:18-CV-1249 (CSH), 2019 WL 2006001, at *6 (D. Conn. May 7, 2019)
(“Plaintiff initiated this action. Defendants are entitled to inquire into the specifics of, and the
bases for, the factual allegations Plaintiff asserts in support of his claims.”).

Moreover,

“depositions are a regular and common device to develop factual support for a party’s claims or
defenses.” Davall v. Cordero, No. 20-cv-1968 JLS (KSC), 2021 WL 4705157, at *2 (S.D. Cal.
Oct. 8, 2021) (quotation omitted). “[I]f the deposition is fairly limited to matters relating to the
claims and defenses raised in the case, the deposition is within the scope of permitted discovery.”
Anthony v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, No. 19-cv-08303-LHK-VKD, 2021 WL 4866358, at *1 (N.D.
Cal. Sept. 24, 2021).

3

Accordingly, the court will GRANT the Motion to Take Plaintiff’s Deposition.
Defendants may depose Plaintiff for one day, not to exceed seven hours. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(d)(1). Plaintiff’s deposition shall occur on or before the discovery deadline of June 6, 2022.
Defendants are hereby ADVISED that it is their duty to coordinate with Plaintiff’s facility to
obtain a mutually agreeable time and date for Plaintiff’s deposition, as well as to ensure that the
appropriate technology is in place to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition. See Griffin v. Johnson, No.
1:13-cv-01599-LJO-BAM (PC), 2016 WL 4764670, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2016) (“Although
the Court is granting leave to Defendants to depose Plaintiff, the Court defers to the prison officials
and custody staff at [the facility] regarding their policies and procedures of the manner in which
that deposition may be taken.”).
CONCLUSION
It is hereby ORDERED that:
(1)

The Motion for Order Permitting Deposition of Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate
Joseph Smith [Doc. 176] is GRANTED;

(2)

Defendants MAY DEPOSE Plaintiff Joseph Smith, on or before June 6, 2022, for
not more than one day of seven hours, via remote means. The deposition shall be
conducted from USP Thomson, or, if Plaintiff is moved to a different facility
subsequent to this Order and prior to the deposition, from Plaintiff’s new facility;
and

(3)

Defendants SHALL COORDINATE with Plaintiff’s facility to schedule a time
and date for Plaintiff’s deposition and shall also coordinate with Plaintiff’s facility
to ensure the appropriate technology is in place to conduct the remote deposition.

4

DATED: May 10, 2022

BY THE COURT:
_________________________
Nina Y. Wang
United States Magistrate Judge

5