TORRENCE v. HSEUH, 2:10-cv-01222 KJN. (2011)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20110930c13
Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 29, 2011
Latest Update: Sep. 29, 2011
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. Defendants SAUKHLA, ANDREASEN, McKENZIE, GRANNIS, WALKER, HAILE and BICK seek an order from the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4), to permit defendants' counsel to conduct the deposition of plaintiff DEAVON E. TORRENCE (K-65602) via videoconference. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Defendants' request to conduct plaintiff's deposition via videoconference (dkt. no. 61) is GRANTED. 2. Nothing in this Order
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. Defendants SAUKHLA, ANDREASEN, McKENZIE, GRANNIS, WALKER, HAILE and BICK seek an order from the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4), to permit defendants' counsel to conduct the deposition of plaintiff DEAVON E. TORRENCE (K-65602) via videoconference. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Defendants' request to conduct plaintiff's deposition via videoconference (dkt. no. 61) is GRANTED. 2. Nothing in this Order ..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Defendants SAUKHLA, ANDREASEN, McKENZIE, GRANNIS, WALKER, HAILE and BICK seek an order from the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4), to permit defendants' counsel to conduct the deposition of plaintiff DEAVON E. TORRENCE (K-65602) via videoconference.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendants' request to conduct plaintiff's deposition via videoconference (dkt. no. 61) is GRANTED.
2. Nothing in this Order shall be interpreted as requiring any penal institution to obtain videoconferencing equipment if it is not already available.
Source: Leagle
