Boyd v. Shannan-Sharpe et al

Filing 26

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 9/30/15 denying without prejudice 25 Motion for oral deposition. (cc: all counsel) (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DEMETRIUS MONROE BOYD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-cv-832

LT. SHANNAN-SHARPE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
On September 28, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for oral deposition. He asks that I
order “each defendant [to] give a deposition orally and under an [sic] sworn oath on the
record”; “the defendant(s) to provide a room, time, and date the oral deposition should be
taken”; and the “appoint[ment of] a deponent to conduct the deposition . . . .” (Docket #25.)
The plaintiff explains that defendants are represented by counsel, are more educated than
he is, and will have the opportunity to “find a way around the truth” if they are required only
to respond to written discovery, rather than sit for an oral deposition.
Plaintiff’s motion is premature because defendants have not yet responded to
plaintiff’s complaint. Once defendants respond file an answer, I will issue a scheduling
order and discovery in this case will commence. Because the motion is premature, I will
deny it without prejudice.
However, plaintiff should keep in mind that although a prisoner who is proceeding
pro se may utilize any of the discovery methods prescribed in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, including depositions, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 30(b)(3)(A) requires that a party
noticing a deposition bear the cost of recording the deposition. Nothing in the statute

governing in forma pauperis proceedings requires a court to waive, pay, or shift to another
party the costs of an in forma pauperis litigant. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c), (d).
If after a discovery schedule has been put in place plaintiff seeks waiver of the costs
and fees associated with the depositions he requests, he must establish that he cannot
obtain the information he wants through interrogatories, requests for admissions, or
requests for the production of documents. See McNeil v. Lowney, 831 F.2d 1368 (7th
Cir.1987) (finding that the district court had no authority to waive witness fees for indigent
inmate where the prisoner plaintiff was able to present the essence of his case from other
sources). This requires more than unsupported speculation that defendants will “find a way
around the truth” if required only to respond to written discovery.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff motion for oral deposition (Docket #25)
is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 30th day of September, 2015.
s/ Lynn Adelman
_______________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

2