FOSTER v. SMITHSON et al

Filing 116

ORDER denying 91 Motion for Depositions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Doris L. Pryor on 12/17/2018 (dist made) (CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
LA VERNE FOSTER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster
General, United States Postal Service,
Great Lakes Region,
Defendant.

No. 1:17-cv-04271-JRS-DLP

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Depositions
(Dkt. 91). The Motion was referred to the Undersigned for a ruling and, for the
reasons set forth below, is hereby DENIED.
In the present Motion, the Plaintiff requests leave to take depositions of
twenty-one (21) employees of the United States Postal Service and further requests
that the Court provide a court reporter or stenographer for said depositions. The
Defendant filed a response, arguing that the Plaintiff’s Motion is deficient generally
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
As required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)(i), the Plaintiff has
requested leave of the Court to conduct more than ten depositions. While the
request itself is proper, other deficiencies exist that force this Court to deny the
Plaintiff’s Motion. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(3)(A), the party
noticing the deposition bears the costs of recording said deposition. Nothing in the

statute governing in forma pauperis proceedings requires the Court to pay, or
waive, the discovery costs of an in forma pauperis litigant. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C.
1915(c), (d); McNeil v. Lowney, 831 F.2d 1368 (7th Cir. 1987). The Court can provide
a conference room in which a deposition may take place, but the responsibility for
securing and paying a court reporter or stenographer falls to the Plaintiff herself.
Without a showing that the Plaintiff has secured these services, the Court cannot in
good faith grant her Motion.
Additionally, the Court finds that twenty-one (21) depositions of the
Defendant’s officers and employees is cumulatively burdensome. See C.A. v. Amli at
Riverbend LP, No. 1:06-cv-1736-SEB-JMS, 2008 WL 1995451, at *2 (S.D. Ind. May
7, 2008). This ruling, however, does not address whether the deposition of any one
specific officer or employee of the Defendant would be unduly burdensome.
This ruling also does not preclude the Plaintiff from working with counsel for
the Defendant to schedule individual depositions of the Defendant’s employees.
“The parties are reminded that discovery is supposed to be a cooperative endeavor,
requiring minimal judicial intervention.” Amli, 2008 WL 1995451, at *2 (citing
Airtex Corp. v. Shelley Radiant Ceiling Co., 536 F.2d 145, 155 (7th Cir. 1976)).
So ORDERED.

Date: 12/17/2018

Distribution:
All ECF-registered counsel of record via email generated by the court’s ECF system.
La Verne Foster
5305 Cotton Bay Drive West
Indianapolis, IN 46254-4520