Gonzalez v. English
Filing
22
ORDER signed by Chief Judge Pamela Pepper on 1/27/2025 DENYING 19 plaintiff's motion for court to order deposition. (cc: all counsel and mailed to Jose Gonzalez at Waupun Correctional Institution)(cb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
JOSE GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 24-cv-739-pp
SARA ENGLISH,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION REQUESTING COURTS TO ORDER
DEPOSITION (DKT. NO. 19)
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Jose Gonzalez, who is incarcerated at Waupun Correctional
Institution and is representing himself, filed this case alleging that the
defendant violated his constitutional rights. The court screened the amended
complaint and allowed the plaintiff to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim
based on allegations that the defendant did not provide him adequate medical
care after his self-harm incident. Dkt. No. 13 at 5. The court exercised
supplemental jurisdiction over a medical malpractice claim under Wisconsin
state law. Id. This order addresses the plaintiff’s motion asking the court to
order the defendant to participate in a deposition. Dkt. No. 19.
The plaintiff asks the court to order Waupun Correctional Institution to
allow him to depose the defendant at the institution. Id. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 30 governs depositions by oral examination. The procedure for
depositions, which is rather lengthy, includes having an “officer” conduct the
deposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(5). The plaintiff has not named an officer to
1
conduct the deposition, and he has not explained why it is necessary to depose
the defendant under Rule 30. During discovery, the plaintiff may serve written
questions (“interrogatories,” under Rule 33) and ask the defendants to admit
certain facts (“requests for admission,” under Rule 36). The plaintiff has not
explained why he needs to conduct oral examinations when he can obtain
information from the defendant through interrogatories, requests for
admissions and requests for production of documents.
Although the plaintiff may prefer to depose the defendant by asking oral
questions, the court is not obligated to subsidize the plaintiff's litigation by
paying for an officer to take the defendant’s deposition. See Soto v. White, Case
No. 19-3135, 2022 WL 2115299, at *2 (7th Cir. June 13, 2022) (citing McNeil v.
Lowney, 831 F.2d 1368, 1373 (7th Cir. 1987) (holding that the district court
had no statutory authority to waive witness fees for plaintiff proceeding in
forma pauperis); Patten v. Schmidt, Case No. 07-C-0026, 2007 WL 3026622, at
*6 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 16, 2007). The court will deny the plaintiff's motion for the
court to order deposition.
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion requesting courts to order
deposition. Dkt. No. 19.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 27th day of January, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
Chief United States District Judge
2
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?