Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00850/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00850-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 The Court notes that Rule 30(b)(4) provides that the Court may “on motion” 1

authorize a deposition to be conducted remotely. Defendants are advised that any future

request to take a deposition via video conference should be filed as a motion in

accordance with the rules.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT HACKWORTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. RANGEL,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-850-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

REQUEST TO TAKE DEPOSITION BY

VIDEOCONFERENCE

(Doc. 55)

Defendant Rangel has filed a Request to Conduct Plaintiff Robert Hackworth's 1

Deposition via Videoconference [Doc. 55]. Defendant asks for this relief in an attempt to

minimize the expense associated with taking the deposition of a prisoner housed a

significant distance from counsel for Defendant. Plaintiff has not opposed the Request.

For good cause shown, Defendant's Request to Conduct Plaintiff Robert

Hackworth's Deposition via Videoconference [Doc. 55] is GRANTED. Nothing in this Order

shall be interpreted as requiring the institution in which Plaintiff is housed to obtain ///

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-00850-BAM Document 56 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

videoconferencing equipment if it is not already available.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00850-BAM Document 56 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 2