Roberts v. Cox et al
Filing
72
ORDER Granting 69 Motion to Take Deposition of Plaintiff Ken Roberts, and Granting 71 Motion to Strike 68 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 4/2/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
4
***
5
KEN ROBERTS,
6
7
8
9
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES GREG COX, et al.,
Defendants.
10
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:09-cv-02382-PMP -VCF
ORDER
11
Before the court are defendants James Greg Cox, et al’s Motion For Leave To Depose
12
Incarcerated Individual (Plaintiff, Ken Roberts) (#69) and Motion To Strike Plaintiff’s Request for
13
Admissions and First Request for Production of Documents (#71).
14
On August 31, 2010, plaintiff Ken Roberts, an inmate at Ely State Prison in Ely, Nevada, filed
15
his complaint against several defendants for alleged civil rights violations. (#8).
16
Motion To Take Deposition
17
In the present motion (#69), the defendants ask this court to permit them to take plaintiff
18
Roberts’ deposition. Defendants assert that taking plaintiff’s deposition is “the most reliable means for
19
arriving at the truth of the matters asserted in the pleading.” (#69).
20
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(B), “[a] party must obtain leave of the
21
court, and the court must grant leave to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(2),” if the party seeks to
22
depose an individual who is confined in prison. Rule 26(b)(1) permits litigants to “obtain discovery
23
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
24
26(b)(1). Defendants wish to depose the plaintiff in this action. (#69). The court finds that plaintiff
25
Roberts’ deposition testimony is relevant to the allegations in the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
26
Therefore, the defendants are granted leave of the court to take the deposition of plaintiff Roberts.
1
Motion To Strike
2
On March 22, 2012, plaintiff Roberts filed his request for admissions (#67) and his first request
3
for production of documents (#68). Defendants assert in the instant motion that plaintiff timely served
4
defendants with these documents pursuant to the court’s March 5, 2012, order. (#71). Defendants also
5
state that they “will be serving timely objections/responses [to] [p]laintiff’s’” requests. Id. Defendants
6
ask this court to strike the plaintiff’s unnecessary filings. Id. Pursuant to Local Rule 26-8, “[u]nless
7
otherwise ordered by the court, written discovery, including responses thereto, and deposition
8
transcripts, shall not be filed with the court.” Striking the filings does not relieve defendants of their
9
obligations to respond to the written discovery in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
10
and the Local Rules of this court.
11
Accordingly, and for good cause shown,
12
IT IS ORDERED that defendants James Greg Cox, et al’s Motion For Leave To Depose
13
Incarcerated Individual (Plaintiff, Ken Roberts) (#69) is GRANTED.
14
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants James Greg Cox, et al’s Motion To Strike
15
Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions and First Request for Production of Documents (#71) is GRANTED.
16
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (#67) and First Request
17
for Production of Documents (#68) be STRICKEN.
18
DATED this 2nd day of April, 2012.
19
20
21
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
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?