Haynes v. Richmond County Sheriff Office et al

Filing 74

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 72 Motion for Discovery, subject to the restrictions in the 72 May 24th Order (Note: Clerk is directed to attach a copy of this Order to Plaintiff's copy of this Order); directing the Clerk to send to Plainti ff three signed civil subpoena AO88 forms; extending discovery period to September 1, 2016; and, denying as moot Plaintiff's 73 Motion for Leave to take a deposition of Defendant upon written questions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 8/2/2016. (jah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
RODERICK D. HAYNES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DEPUTY MICHAEL GARNER, in his
)
Individual and Official Capacity,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_________

CV 114-237

ORDER
_________
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for “leave to file deposition upon written
questions” and for three subpoenas. (Doc. nos. 72, 73). Regarding Plaintiff’s motion for
subpoenas, it appears that he is making a request to subpoena the same information that the
Court granted him permission to request in its May 24, 2016 Order. (See doc. no. 68.)
Because the Court is unsure if Plaintiff actually received the subpoenas it directed to be
issued to him, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s request subject to the restrictions in the
May 24th Order. (Doc. no. 72.) The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to furnish Plaintiff with
three Form AO88B subpoenas, issued under the Clerk's signature but otherwise in blank,
along with a copy of the Court’s May 24th Order. Because the discovery period ended
August 1, 2016, the Court EXTENDS the discovery period to September 1, 2016.
Plaintiff has also motioned for leave to take a deposition by written questions similar
to his prior motion filed on May 26, 2016. (See doc. no. 69.) The only difference is that in
the notice of deposition attached to the motion, Plaintiff avers that he will bear the cost of the

deposition. (Doc. no. 73, p. 4.). Plaintiff has also attached to the motion twenty-five
proposed questions for Defendant. (See doc. no. 73, pp. 6-10.)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 31 does not require leave for Plaintiff to take a deposition of
Defendant by written questions. Further, Defendant does not supply any information as to
how he will pay for the deposition or what arrangements he has made for the deposition.
Given the scant information in his motion, it appears that Plaintiff expects Defendant to
make the arrangements. If Plaintiff wishes to use a deposition as a discovery method, he
must make his own arrangements to have an officer under Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 present and
confer with Defendant for a time and place agreeable to take the deposition. Accordingly,
the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion for deposition upon written questions.
(Doc. no. 73.)
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of August, 2016, at Augusta, Georgia.

2