Perez v. Morgan et al

Filing 144

ORDER that Plaintiff's 134 Motion to Seek Leave to Take Deposition by Written Answer is DENIED. The Court ADOPTS IN PART section II of defendants' proposed Partial Discovery Plan, Dkt. 129. **SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS** Signed by Magistrate Judge Theresa L Fricke.**3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Daniel Perez, Prisoner ID: 888274)(CMG)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5
6

DANIEL JAY PEREZ,
Case No. 3:16-cv-6023 RBL-TLF

7
8
9
10

Plaintiff,
v.
DICK MORGAN, et al,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO ALLOW FRCP 31
DEPOSITIONS; ORDER ADOPTING
IN PART AND AMENDING THE
DISCOVERY PLAN; AND ORDER ON
DISCOVERY ISSUES

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

This Order further explains the oral rulings the Court made during a telephonic
conference on December 6, 2017.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Seek Leave to Take Deposition by Written Answer, Dkt. 134, is
DENIED. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 31 prescribes a procedure for taking
depositions by written questions. Although the Court can modify that procedure to allow for
written deposition answers, this is an unusual measure and is not warranted here. Defendants and
pro se plaintiffs are to manage discovery “to promote the expeditious and inexpensive resolution
of the case,” which may include “forgoing or limiting depositions.” Local Civil Rule 26(f)(1)(D).
The parties did so here, as Plaintiff previously agreed that because he cannot comply with that
procedure or the Rule 30 procedure for taking oral depositions, he will not take depositions. Dkt.
131. In addition, Plaintiff has not shown why he cannot prosecute his case using a reasonable
number of interrogatories.

24
25

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALLOW
FRCP 31 DEPOSITIONS; ORDER ADOPTING IN PART
AND AMENDING THE DISCOVERY PLAN; AND
ORDER ON DISCOVERY ISSUES - 1

1
2
3

The Court ADOPTS IN PART section II of defendants’ proposed Partial Discovery Plan,
Dkt. 129, with the following modifications:
-

Scheduling Order.

4
5

All deadlines are extended as set forth in the accompanying Second Amended Pretrial

-

Consistent with FRCP 33, Plaintiff is permitted to serve up to 25 interrogatories per

6

defendant. Going forward, Plaintiff is permitted to serve interrogatories only on

7

defendants upon whom he has not yet served interrogatories. These limitations may

8

change only if the parties agree to changes in writing.

9

-

Unless unforeseen circumstances arise that would prevent it, Plaintiff must proceed

10

with the deposition scheduled for December 14, 2017. The parties are to contact the

11

Court if such circumstances arise.

12

-

In the interest of an efficient discovery process, the parties are to phase the

13

authentication of documents. Plaintiff must wait until the summary judgment stage to

14

request authentication of documents. If the case proceeds to trial, there may be

15

additional requests for authentication of documents, depending on the circumstances.

16

At the point where the case is focused on these proceedings, both Mr. Perez and the

17

defendants will have a better idea of which documents must be authenticated because

18

they relate to a summary judgment motion and/or are necessary in order to proceed to

19

trial. Defendants should then, under FRCP 29 and the Federal Rules of Evidence,

20

stipulate to the authenticity of documents that they acknowledge as authentic. Only if

21

the parties then cannot agree on the authentication of certain documents should either

22

party file requests for admission or motions to the Court regarding any disputes with

23

respect to authentication.

24
25

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALLOW
FRCP 31 DEPOSITIONS; ORDER ADOPTING IN PART
AND AMENDING THE DISCOVERY PLAN; AND
ORDER ON DISCOVERY ISSUES - 2

1

-

If Plaintiff determines that further requests for production are warranted under FRCP

2

6(b)(1) and FRCP 34, then before filing a discovery motion he must comply with the

3

existing order to meet and confer with opposing counsel. Dkt. 31.

4

-

The parties are reminded that at all times during discovery the scope of their requests

5

and responses to requests must be “proportional to the needs of the case.” FRCP

6

26(b)(1), United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Local

7

Rule of Civil Procedure 26. The Court will not order discovery that would be

8

inconsistent with this principle.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 7th day of December, 2017.

11
12
13

A

14

Theresa L. Fricke
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALLOW
FRCP 31 DEPOSITIONS; ORDER ADOPTING IN PART
AND AMENDING THE DISCOVERY PLAN; AND
ORDER ON DISCOVERY ISSUES - 3