ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUBPOENA AND TO COMPEL DEPOSITION BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS

30 DAY DEADLINE

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

In this action, Plaintiff claims Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's safety under the Eighth. (Docs. 21, 22.) On September 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to for a subpoena to compel depositions by written questions of the warden and/or housing supervisor as well as five non-parties, based on their failure to respond to the questions he served by mail on July 17, 2013. (Doc. 84.)1 For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

I. Analysis

There is no entitlement to take a deposition of a party or non-party. To do so, even by written question, a party must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Depositions by written questions entail more than mailing questions to the deponents and awaiting their written responses; rather, an officer must be retained to take responses and prepare the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(b). Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. His motion to compel suggests neither an ability or a willingness to pay an officer to take the responses for the record.

Plaintiff's request that "subpoenas be served for written deposition" where the Court "deems proper and at no expense" does not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As correctly stated by Defendants, Rule 31(a)(3) requires that notice of deposition by written question must "state the name or descriptive title and the address of the officer before whom the deposition will be taken." The Court may not designate a location for Plaintiff's written depositions to be conducted.

Further, it appears that Plaintiff labors under the misunderstanding that a deposition by written question is the same as propounding interrogatories; it is not that simple. Rather, the purpose of conducting the deposition by written question in front of an officer is because any such deposition officer is required to take the deponent's testimony in response, verbatim, to each question as well as to prepare and certify the deposition transcript. Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(b). For all practical purposes, a deposition by written questions differs from an in person deposition only in as much as Plaintiff would not be present to ask the questions orally.

In addition, Plaintiff must pay the deposition officer for his or her services. If Plaintiff is able and willing to compensate an officer to take responses and prepare the record, he may notify the Court within thirty days, accompanied by an offer of proof regarding the financial ability to do so.2 The Court will construe Plaintiff's failure to notify the Court within this time period as an abandonment of the request.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion for an order compelling depositions by written questions of the unidentified housing supervisory and various non-parties, filed September 2, 2015 (Doc. 84), is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.