ASHFORD v. HAWKINBERRY et al

Filing 86

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 85 MOTION for Leave to Obtain Oral Deposition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 7/13/2016. (jlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PITTSBURGH
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

AILEAF ASHFORD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROBERT HAWKINBERRY, LT. PARKER,
CAPTAIN WORKMAN, LT. LOWTHER,
SGT. RICHTER, SGT. PLETCHER, SGT.
FRIEND, ASHLEY COTTON, C.O.
DONGILLI, C.O. PELLIS, C.O. EGROS,
C.O. DISALVA, C.O. GARLAND, C.O.
HALEY, C.O. NEWMAN, SGT BRIAN
TANNER, BRIAN COLEMAN,
SUPERINTENDENT; ERIC B. PORTER,
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF
BRADEN MCKNIGHT; AND CAPTAIN
FORTE,
Defendants,

2:14-CV-01718-CRE

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave to Take Oral Depositions (ECF No. 85), in which he
also requests the Court to appoint counsel to make arrangements for the depositions. Plaintiffs
motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
To the extent that Plaintiff is moving to take the oral depositions of the remaining
Defendants, the request is GRANTED and he may do pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
30, in strict compliance with Rule 30.
To the extent that Plaintiff is requesting that the Court or Defendants arrange for or notice the
depositions,

the request is DENIED, as arranging the depositions is Plaintiffs Rule 30

1

responsibility. To the extent that Plaintiff is requesting that Defendant or the Court pay the fees
associated with engaging a court reporter or the preparation of deposition transcripts, the request is
DENIED.

It is not incumbent upon the Court, or the Defendant, to assume responsibility, logistically or
financially, for the depositions Plaintiff wishes to conduct. See, e.g., Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147,
159 (3d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1196 (1994). "There is no provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1915
for the payment by the government of the costs of deposition transcripts, or any other litigation
expenses, and no other statute authorizes courts to commit federal monies for payment of the
necessary expenses in a civil suit brought by an indigent litigant." Ball v. Struthers, Civil No. 1: l lCV-1265, 2011 WL 4891026 at *l (M.D.Pa. Oct. 13, 2011), cited with approval by Huertas v.
Beard, 1:10-CV-10, 2012 WL 1564513 (W.D. Pa. May 2, 2012). In light of the expense of oral

depositions and logistical difficulties presented to an inmate it is often preferable for inmates to seek
discovery through depositions by written questions pursuant to Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, a copy of which will be mailed to Plaintiff with this Order.
Further, Plaintiffs request for the appointment of counsel for the purpose of arranging
depositions, is DENIED, without prejudice to be renewed should this case proceed to trial, for the
reasons stated in the Court's Order of February 23, 2015. (ECF No. 10).
AND NOW, this 13th day of July, 2016:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion is granted in part and denied in part

as explained above.

2

s/ Cynthia Reed Eddy
Cynthia Reed Eddy
United States Magistrate Judge
cc:

AILEAF ASHFORD
DZ-2871
SCI Forest
PO Box 945
Marienville, PA 16239
Attorney for Defendants
Yana L. Warshafsky
via CM/ECF electronic filing

3