Perryman et al v. City of Seattle Police et al

Filing 98

ORDER denying plaintiff's 91 Request to Depose Defendants in Written Questions, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT) cc: [e-mail] per Court's instructions; Plaintiff by USPS

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

_________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
RHINO ROOM, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________ )
SEAN PERRYMAN,

Case No. C17-0274RSL
ORDER

13

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Sean Perryman’s “Request to Depose
14

Defendants in Written Questions.” Dkt. # 91.1 To the extent plaintiff seeks permission to conduct

15

depositions by written questions, the request for relief is DENIED as unnecessary. Plaintiff does
16

not need the Court’s permission to initiate a deposition by written questions in these
17

circumstances. Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(a)(2).
18

A review of the request suggests, however, that plaintiff is confusing depositions by
19

written questions with interrogatories. The written questions submitted for Messrs. Ismael and
20

Gabre-Kidan direct the witnesses to insert written responses and mail hard copies back to
21

plaintiff. Written questions and responses, without oral testimony or transcripts, are more
22
23
24
25
26

1

Dkt. # 91, as filed, does not include the questions plaintiff wants to ask defendant Justin Ismael
or the owner of defendant Rhino Room, Patrick Gabre-Kidan. The courtesy copy submitted for
chambers, however, includes the lists of questions. Plaintiff shall make every effort to ensure that the
documents submitted to the chambers for review match those that are filed in the electronic docket. The
lists of questions are attached to this Order for reference.
ORDER

1

appropriately characterized as interrogatories authorized under Rule 34. A deposition by written

2

questions, on the other hand, is authorized by Rule 31 and follows a completely different

3

procedure

4

Pursuant to Rule 31, the party taking the deposition by written questions sends out a

5

notice that identifies the witness, the name and address of the officer before whom the deposition

6

will be taken, the date, time, and location where the deposition will be held, and the list of

7

questions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 31 (a)(3); Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-68.7.128.206, 2016

8

WL 3854548, at * 2 (S.D. Cal. July 15, 2016); Lopez v. Horel, 2007 WL 2177460, at *2 n.2

9

(N.D. Cal. July 27, 2007). The parties then have proscribed periods of time in which to submit

10

cross-questions, redirect questions, and recross-questions, after which the party taking the

11

deposition delivers a copy of all of the questions to the officer who will conduct the deposition.

12

Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(a)(5) and (b). The deposition then proceeds at the date, time, and location

13

specified in the notice in a manner similar to an oral deposition under Rule 30. The witness is

14

put under oath, and the officer asks the questions and records the answers verbatim. Following

15

the deposition, a transcript is prepared and sent to the party who initiated the process. That party

16

then notifies all other parties that the transcript is available. Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(b) and (c).
Assuming plaintiff intends to take a deposition by written questions instead of serving

17
18

interrogatories, the notice dated December 21, 2017, is deficient. Plaintiff has not identified the

19

officer before whom the deposition will be taken, has not set the date or time of the deposition,

20

and has not allowed sufficient time for interested parties to provide written questions. The notice

21

is therefore STRICKEN. Plaintiff shall review Rules 31 and 34, determine which discovery tool

22

is preferable, and comply with the applicable procedures. If plaintiff intends to take a deposition

23

by written questions, he shall contact Teri Roberts, the judicial assistant, to confirm when space

24

in the federal courthouse is available before sending out a revised notice of deposition.

25

Plaintiff is again reminded that he must file a status report notifying the Court whether he

26

will make himself available for discovery pursuant to the existing case management schedule or
ORDER

-2-

1

whether he would prefer that this action be stayed for a specified period of time in light of his

2

relocation to Dallas, Texas. This information must come directly from plaintiff, Sean Perryman.

3

His father is not permitted to represent him in this matter, and any attempt to relay Sean’s wishes

4

would constitute hearsay. The status report must be filed by tomorrow at 4:30 pm. If Sean fails

5

to timely apprise the Court of the status of this case, sanctions may be imposed, including

6

dismissal of the claims.

7

Dated this 4th day of January, 2018.

8
9

A
Robert S. Lasnik

10

United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER

-3-