Filed: Apr. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 12, 2019
Summary: ORDER EILEEN S. WILLETT , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 33) in which Plaintiff requests a Court order requiring "Defendants to set dates and times" to conduct depositions of certain parties and non-parties "by telephone or other remote means." By definition, "a `deposition' is the examination under oath by `oral questions' of a party or deponent." Paige v. Consumer Programs, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 272, 275 (C.D. Cal. 2008). A party who wants to depose
Summary: ORDER EILEEN S. WILLETT , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 33) in which Plaintiff requests a Court order requiring "Defendants to set dates and times" to conduct depositions of certain parties and non-parties "by telephone or other remote means." By definition, "a `deposition' is the examination under oath by `oral questions' of a party or deponent." Paige v. Consumer Programs, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 272, 275 (C.D. Cal. 2008). A party who wants to depose a..
More
ORDER
EILEEN S. WILLETT, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 33) in which Plaintiff requests a Court order requiring "Defendants to set dates and times" to conduct depositions of certain parties and non-parties "by telephone or other remote means."
By definition, "a `deposition' is the examination under oath by `oral questions' of a party or deponent." Paige v. Consumer Programs, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 272, 275 (C.D. Cal. 2008). A party who wants to depose a person by oral questions must give written notice to every other party, stating the time and place of the deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1). "Where a deponent is not a party to the action, he can be compelled to appear at a deposition examination only by issuance of a subpoena" pursuant to Rule 45. Cleveland v. Palmby, 75 F.R.D. 654, 656 (W.D. Okl. 1977). "Unless the parties stipulate otherwise, a deposition must be conducted before an officer appointed or designated under Rule 28." Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(5)(A).
Plaintiff's "in forma pauperis status does not entitle Plaintiff to free services such as scheduling, conducting and recording the deposition." Brooks v. Tate, No. 1:11-CV-01503 AWI, 2013 WL 4049053, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2013). To the extent Plaintiff seeks to depose non-parties, Plaintiff also will be required to pay attendance and/or mileage fees pursuant to Rule 45. The Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 136) without prejudice. Plaintiff shall review Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 28, 30, 31, and 45. Plaintiff may re-file a Motion that (i) establishes the need to depose certain individuals and (ii) establishes Plaintiff's ability to pay all applicable costs.
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's March 20, 2019 Motion (Doc. 33) without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by April 29, 2019, Plaintiff may re-file his Motion requesting Court authorization to take depositions. If filed, the Motion shall (i) establish the need to depose certain individuals and (ii) establish Plaintiff's ability to pay all applicable costs.
