Delpit et al v. Baton Rouge City Police Dist. 2 et al
ORDER granting 57 Motion to Depose Mr. and Mrs. Parker Over Telephone Conference, as detailed in this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 7/19/2017. (LLH) Modified on 7/20/2017 to edit text (LLH).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DESIREE DELPIT, ET AL.
BATON ROUGE CITY POLICE, DIST. 2,
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Depose Mr. and Mrs. Parker Over Telephone
Conference (R. Doc. 57) filed on July 11, 2017. The motion is not opposed.1
Desiree Delpit and Dexter Delpit (“Plaintiffs”) are proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis. Dexter Delpit is incarcerated at the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center (“EHCC”) in St.
Gabriel, Louisiana. Desiree Delpit is his mother.
Plaintiffs seek leave to depose Mr. and Mrs. Alphonese Parker, who live in Houston,
Texas, by telephone. It is unclear what role these non-parties have with regard to the underlying
Rule 30(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, upon motion, the
court may order a deposition to be “taken by telephone or other remote means.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(b)(4). “Generally, leave to take depositions by remote electronic means should be granted
liberally.” Brown v. Carr, 253 F.R.D. 410, 412 (S.D. Tex. 2008). Considering that Plaintiffs are
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, and one of the Plaintiffs is incarcerated, the Court will
allow any deposition of Mr. and Mrs. Alphonese Parker to proceed by telephone or
The defendants note that Plaintiffs have not taken any action to accomplish taking the deposition such as
coordinating the deposition date with the witness or opposing counsel or hiring a court reporter. (R. Doc. 66).
A party must obtain leave of court to take more than 10 depositions in an action unless a
stipulation is reached between the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i). By previous Order, the
Court granted Plaintiffs leave to exceed the 10 deposition limit for the purpose of deposing all of
the named Defendants. (R. Doc. 50). To the extent necessary, the Court will grant Plaintiffs
leave to further exceed the 10 deposition limit to depose the non-parties identified as Mr. and
Mrs. Alphonese Parker.
To the extent necessary, Plaintiff must obtain a subpoena to secure the depositions of Mr.
and Mrs. Alphonese Parker as required by Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
take all necessary steps to properly secure their attendance.
The Court notes for the benefit of the Plaintiffs that despite their pro se and in forma
pauperis status, they “must still pay fees associated with any depositions of defendants”
including “the cost of the court reporter’s servicers as well as the cost for copies of the
transcripts.” See Brown v. Carr, 236 F.R.D. 311, 313 (S.D. Tex. 2006); see also Wright v. United
States, 948 F. Supp. 61, 62 (M.D. Fla. 1996) ([T]he majority of the courts that have addressed
the issue of payment of court reporter fees and costs of transcription have found that [28 U.S.C.
§] 1915 does not give the trial court authority to direct the government to pay for such costs.”).2
Nothing in this Order shall be interpreted as requiring Mr. and Mrs. Alphonese Parker to
attend a deposition in the absence of a valid Rule 45 subpoena or as otherwise concluding that
Mr. and Mrs. Alphonese have any information to provide that is within the scope of discovery as
defined by Rule 26(b)(1).
The subpoena for the depositions must state the method for recording the testimony. Accordingly, Plaintiffs must
make arrangements for such recording and associated fees prior to the depositions.
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Depose Mr. and Mrs. Parker Over Telephone
Conference (R. Doc. 57) is GRANTED as detailed in this Order.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 19, 2017.
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?