Pierron v. Lafourche Parish Detention Center et al

Filing 29

ORDER AND REASONS re 28 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North on 9/16/2016. (bwn)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA TREISTON MICHAEL PIERRON CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NUMBER: 16-01746 L.P.D.C., ET AL. SECTION: “H”(5) ORDER AND REASONS Presently before the Court is an undenominated filing from Plaintiff which was docketed as a motion to compel discovery. (Rec. doc. 28). In that filing, Plaintiff first asks that the Court subpoena certain video footage from the correctional facility where he was previously housed. Inasmuch as no hearing or trial dates have been scheduled in this matter, Plaintiff’s request is denied as premature. Schildkraut v. Bally’s Casino New Orleans, L.L.C., No. 04-CV-0366, 2004 WL 1558796 at *1 (E.D. La. July 9, 2004). Otherwise, Plaintiff is not precluded from availing himself of the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relative to the production of documents and things. Next, Plaintiff questions whether the Defendants deny or agree with certain allegations that are set forth in his complaint. Once again, Plaintiff is not precluded from availing himself of the provision of the Federal Rules relative to requests for admissions in an attempt to have his various queries addressed and answered. Finally, Plaintiff requests that a hearing be scheduled regarding the order of depositions of three inmate witnesses that he apparently desires to take. Under Rule 30(a)(2)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P., a party must obtain leave of court prior to taking the deposition of a deponent who is confined in prison. As Plaintiff does not provide the Court with the present locations and intended testimony of the three inmates that he identifies, leave to depose them is denied at this time. See Jones v. Johnson, No. 09-CV-3666, 2010 WL 3923163 at *3 (E.D. La. Sept. 27, 2010)(leave denied where, inter alia, no showing is made that the testimony of the potential deponents was relevant). Given that Plaintiff would be responsible for the costs associated with the depositions that he contemplates, Pedraza v. Jones, 71 F.3d 194, 196 (5th Cir. 1995), he may wish to consider using less costly discovery devices such as depositions by written questions but only after first obtaining leave of Court as required by Rule 31(a)(2)(B). New Orleans, Louisiana, this 16th day of September , 2016. MICHAEL B. NORTH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

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?