Filed: Jul. 01, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 01, 2013
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. On June 17, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's request for deposition subpoenas, and informed plaintiff of the requirements of Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subsequently, plaintiff's June 13, 2013 motion to depose by written questions was docketed on June 17, 2013. Plaintiff's motion was written before the court's June 17, 2013 order issued, and the motion does not comply wit
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. On June 17, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's request for deposition subpoenas, and informed plaintiff of the requirements of Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subsequently, plaintiff's June 13, 2013 motion to depose by written questions was docketed on June 17, 2013. Plaintiff's motion was written before the court's June 17, 2013 order issued, and the motion does not comply with..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. On June 17, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's request for deposition subpoenas, and informed plaintiff of the requirements of Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subsequently, plaintiff's June 13, 2013 motion to depose by written questions was docketed on June 17, 2013. Plaintiff's motion was written before the court's June 17, 2013 order issued, and the motion does not comply with the June 17, 2013 order. Specifically, plaintiff does not discuss making arrangements for an officer to process the questions, or indicate whether he is financially responsible for procuring an officer to transcribe the witnesses' testimony, for notice and delivery of the questions, for filing of the deposition, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, and for the payment of witness fees and mileage for each deponent, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). Thus, plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice to its renewal.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's June 17, 2013 motion (ECF No. 78) is denied without prejudice.
