Goodvine v. Swiekatowski et al

Filing 105

ORDER granting 103 Motion to Take Deposition from Christopher Goodvine, Shareef Williams, Fradario Brim ; granting in part and denying in part 104 Motion for Leave to confer with witnesses, Motion for photocopies. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 1/27/2010. (eds),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

CHRISTOPHER GOODVINE, P l a i n t i f f, v. M I C H A E L DONOVAN, D efend an t. ORD ER 0 8 - c v- 7 0 2 -b b c

D efen d a n t Michael Donovan has filed a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(B) for leave t o depose plaintiff and two of his witnesses (Shareef Williams and Fradario Brim), all of whom are c o n fin e d in prison. See dkt. 103. Defendant offers to make arrangements so that plaintiff may appear at the depositions of the other witnesses by telephone. Plaintiff does not object to the d e po sitio n s or to the manner that defendant requests to conduct them, so I will grant the motion. H o w ev er, plaintiff has filed his own motion in which he requests that several conditions be p la c e d on the depositions: ( 1 ) provide plaintiff the date of the depositions; (2 ) allow plaintiff to confer with his witnesses before they are deposed; (3) provide plaintiff with copies of any exhibits that defendant intends to use during a n y of the three depositions. See dkt. 104. T h e first and third of these requests are required by Rule 30, so defendant would have no reas on to object. Under most circumstances, the second request would be unnecessary because a p a r ty 's lawyer does not need permission from the court to speak to his client's own witness. H o w e v er , in this case, plaintiff is acting as his own lawyer and his ability to confer with anyone is lim ited by his incarceration. Thus, plaintiff needs special permission to do what any represented pa rty would do as a matter of course.

P la in t iff does not have an absolute right to confer with his witnesses. Rather, in deciding an in carc erated person's requests related to the prosecution of a civil case, a court must balance the im po rtan ce of the prisoner's request in preparing his claim against "the costs and inconvenience" to pris o n officials and the "potential danger or security risk" posed by the request. Stone v. Morris, 546 F .2 d 730 (7 th Cir. 1976). In this case, the "costs and inconvenience" of allowing plaintiff to confer with his witnesses in person before their depositions could be substantial because each of them is incarcerated at a d iffer en t prison. However, it is unlikely that allowing plaintiff to speak with the two witnesses for a short time over the telephone would create a substantial burden or a security risk. Because d efe n d an t has already offered to make plaintiff available for the depositions by telephone, it should cr eate little additional administrative inconvenience to allow plaintiff to speak confidentially with eac h witness for 15 minutes before the deposition begins. In his motion, plaintiff includes an unrelated request for photocopies of a number of d o c u m e n ts that he filed earlier in the proceedings. Plaintiff says that his "only copies of these m a ter ia ls were sent to the court as he is indigent and unable to copy them." I am denying this motion for several reasons. First, in the screening order, Judge Crabb ins tr u c te d plaintiff to "keep a copy of all documents for his own files. If he is unable to use a ph o to c o py machine, he may send out identical handwritten or typed copies of their documents." G o o d v in e v. Swiekatowski, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1061 (W.D. Wis. 2009). Plaintiff did not inform th e court until now that he had disregarded that instruction and he includes no explanation for fa ilin g to make copies through the prison legal loan program, Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.51, or to prepare handwritten copies for himself or the court.

2

S eco n d , plaintiff has failed to explain why he needs these documents. He says only that they are "necessary for the prosecution of his case." To the extent he was concerned about defendant's u s e of these documents during the depositions, that concern is alleviated because I am requiring d e f en d a n t to provide plaintiff with any documents being using in conjunction with the depositions. F i n a lly , plaintiff has failed to identify with any specificity the documents he is requesting. H e simply provides a number of general descriptions without identifying the docket or exhibit nu m bers. I am enclosing a docket sheet with this order. If plaintiff believes that he needs a copy of any d o c u m e n t on the docket sheet, he should write a letter to the clerk of court, identifying exactly what h e needs. The price of photocopies for indigent litigants is 10¢ a page.

ORDER It is ORDERED that: (1) Defendant Michael Donovan's motion to take the depositions of plaintiff Christopher Goodvine and witnesses Shareef Williams and Fradario Brim, dkt. 103, is GRANTED. Defendant shall make arrangements so that plaintiff may appear by telephone. (2) Plaintiff's motion related to the conditions of the depositions, dkt. 104, is GRANTED. At least 48 hours before each deposition, defendant shall give plaintiff notice of the time of the deposition and provide plaintiff with copies of any exhibit that may be used at the deposition. Before the depositions of Williams and Brim begin, plaintiff shall be allowed to confer with them confidentially for at least 15 minutes over the telephone. (3) Plaintiff's motion for photocopies, dkt. 104, is DENIED. Entered this 27th day of January, 2010. BY THE COURT: /s/ STEPHEN L. CROCKER Magistrate Judge 3