Nash vs. Lucas

Filing 98

ORDER by Judge Ronald B. Leighton granting in part 92 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; granting in part and denying in part 94 Motion; granting in part and denying in part 95 Motion. ***See order for details. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Keith Nash, Prisoner ID: 769885)(MET)

Download PDF
1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 KEITH L. NASH, CASE NO. C14-5851-RBL 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. DKT. ##92, 94, 95 11 GARY E. LUCAS, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Nash’s motion seeking an extension of 15 time to conduct discovery [Dkt. #92], motion to depose a witness telephonically [Dkt. #94], and 16 motion to record the deposition non-stenographically [Dkt. #95]. Nash is incarcerated at the 17 Stafford Creek Corrections Center. He asks the Court to grant him 90 additional days to depose 18 his witness, Jeffrey Barrar, and for permission to do so telephonically. He also asks for 19 permission to pay to record Barrar’s deposition non-stenographically. Defendants did not 20 respond. 21 (1) The Court ordered the parties to complete discovery by November 28, 2016. Nash 22 filed his request to extend the discovery deadline by 90 days on November 16. It is his third 23 request for an extension of time. He claims his incarceration has hindered his ability to timely 24 ORDER - 1 1 depose Barrar. Nash’s request for additional time [Dkt. #92] is GRANTED IN PART. He may 2 have 30 days from the date of this order to complete his deposition. 3 (2) Nash argues that because he is incarcerated, he needs to depose Barrar 4 telephonically. He also argues he needs “this relief so [he] may comply with the court’s ordered 5 [sic] to conduct deposition.” Dkt. #94 at 4. Notably, the Court did not order Barrar to submit to a 6 deposition; it directed service on him because Nash is IFP and incarcerated. No one—Nash, 7 Defendants, or Barrar—has argued the propriety of Nash’s desired deposition, and so the Court 8 has not had the opportunity to consider its merits. Nash’s motion [Dkt. #94] is DENIED to the 9 extent he is asking the Court to order Barrar’s deposition. 10 To the extent Nash is asking for permission to depose Barrar telephonically if it occurs, 11 his motion [Dkt. #94] is GRANTED subject to SCC protocols. The Court may allow a deposition 12 to be taken over the phone. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 30(b)(4). Because Nash is incarcerated, he may 13 depose Barrar telephonically, if the deposition occurs, provided he adheres to SCC safety 14 procedures. 15 (3) Nash asks the Court to permit him to record Barrar’s deposition non- 16 stenographically. In effect, he asks the Court to compel a non-party, the SCC, to alter its security 17 protocols to permit him access to a recording device. He has not demonstrated such relief is 18 necessary or appropriate. To the extent Nash asks the Court to compel the SCC to produce a 19 recording device, his motion [Dkt. #95] is DENIED. 20 To the extent Nash asks for permission to pay to record Barrar’s testimony, if it occurs, 21 with a device located outside the SCC, his motion [Dkt. #95] is GRANTED. A party may pay to 22 record a deposition by audio or audiovisual means or to have it transcribed. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23 24 DKT. ##92, 94, 95 - 2 1 30(b)(3). Therefore, Nash may pay to record Barrar’s deposition provided that the recording 2 device is located outside the SCC, on Barrar’s end of the telephone. 3 Dated this 21st day of December, 2016. 4 A 5 Ronald B. Leighton United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 DKT. ##92, 94, 95 - 3

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?