Montanez v. Salinas et al

Filing 22

ORDER granting Defendants' 21 Motion for Leave to Take Plaintiff's Deposition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman. (JOwe)

Case 2:21-cv-11645-TGB-KGA ECF No. 22, PageID.112 Filed 10/20/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ERIC MONTANEZ,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:21-cv-11645
District Judge Terrence G. Berg
Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman

v.
ERNESTO SALINAS, BRANDON
HULL, and AUSTIN MYERS,
Defendants.
_________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE
PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION (ECF No. 21)
I.
This is a civil rights complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
Eric Montanez is a prisoner proceeding pro se against the three remaining
defendants with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). (ECF Nos. 1,
6). All pretrial matters were referred to the undersigned. (ECF No. 7). Before the
Court is the MDOC Defendants’ motion for leave under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 30(a)(2)(B) to take the deposition of Montanez, who is currently
incarcerated. (ECF No. 21). For the reasons that follow, the motion will be
GRANTED.

1

Case 2:21-cv-11645-TGB-KGA ECF No. 22, PageID.113 Filed 10/20/22 Page 2 of 3

II.
Rule 30 provides broad access to persons for depositions; Rule 30(a)(2)(B),
however, requires a party to obtain leave of court where, as here, “the deponent is
confined in prison.” In determining whether it is appropriate to grant leave to
conduct such a deposition, Rule 30(a)(2) provides that “the court must grant leave
to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2)[.]” According to Rule 26(b)(1),
the scope of discovery is as follows: “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at
stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to
relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit.” Thus, [t]he “language of Rule 30(a)(2) requires the
Court to authorize a deposition unless the deponent is seeking privileged,
irrelevant, or unnecessarily costly information.” McGinnis v. Huq, 2017 WL
1044989, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 20, 2017) (emphasis in original).
Considering these factors, Defendants’ request to depose Montanez is
consistent with the applicable Federal Rules and otherwise appropriate.
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. While it appears that Montanez
is currently confined at the Chippewa Correctional Facility in Kincheloe,
2

Case 2:21-cv-11645-TGB-KGA ECF No. 22, PageID.114 Filed 10/20/22 Page 3 of 3

Michigan, defendants may depose him at whichever facility he is confined to on
the date of the deposition.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 20, 2022
Detroit, Michigan

s/Kimberly G. Altman
KIMBERLY G. ALTMAN
United States Magistrate Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to
their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on October 20, 2022.
s/Julie Owens
CAROLYN CIESLA
Case Manager

3