Coleman v. Danforth, et al
ORDER denying as moot 97 Motion requesting oral deposition order; and 98 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 7/17/17. (cmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COREY LEWIS COLEMAN,
WILLIAM DANFORTH, Warden, Telfair
State Prison; SAM ZANDERS, Deputy
Warden, Telfair State Prison; LT. RODNEY )
MCCLOUD, Unit Manager, Telfair State
Prison; LIEUTENANT WILCOX, Telfair
State Prison, SERGEANT JORDAN, Telfair )
State Prison; SERGEANT TAYLOR, Telfair )
State Prison; OFFICER BELL, Cert. Officer, )
Telfair State Prison; JOHN DOE, Cert.
Officer, Telfair State Prison, JANE DOE,
Nurse, Telfair State Prison; and DR.
CHANEY, Telfair State Prison,
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions requesting oral deposition order and for a
protective order preventing Defendants from taking his deposition. (Doc. nos. 97, 98).
According to Defendants, Plaintiff’s deposition took place as noticed on July 13, 2017. (See
doc. no. 99, p. 2.) Therefore, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion for a
protective order. (Doc. no. 98.)
Turning to Plaintiff’s motion requesting an oral deposition order, under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 30(a), “[a] party may, by oral questions, depose any person, including a
party, without leave of court . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1). The second half of Rule 30(a)
lays out four exceptions to the general rule:
(2) With Leave. A party must obtain leave of court [to take a deposition]:
(A) if the parties have not stipulated to the deposition and:
(i) the deposition would result in more than 10 depositions
being taken. . . ;
(ii) the deponent has already been deposed in the case; or
(iii) the party seeks to take the deposition before the time
specified in Rule 26(d), unless the party certifies in the
notice, with supporting facts, that the deponent is expected
to leave the United States and be unavailable for
examination in this country after that time; or
(B) if the deponent is confined in prison.
Id. at (a)(2).
Because none of the exceptions found in Rule 30(a)(2) are applicable in this case,
Plaintiff may notice and depose witnesses without an order from the Court. Accordingly, the
Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion requesting oral deposition order. (Doc. no.
97.) If Plaintiff wishes to use depositions as a discovery method, he must make his own
arrangements to have an officer under Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 present and confer with Defendants
and, if applicable, third-party witnesses for a time and place agreeable to take any deposition.
SO ORDERED this 17th day of July, 2017, at Augusta, Georgia.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?