Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00638/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00638-6/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL AARON WITKIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIANA LOTERSZTAIN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0638 MCE KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 22, 2016, the parties were ordered to meet and confer, to 

address plaintiff’s pending request to depose defendants’ expert prior to filing his opposition to 

the motion for summary judgment. On January 23, 2017, the parties filed a joint status report 

confirming that the parties have conferred concerning the potential costs for Dr. Barnett’s 

deposition, and have agreed on a procedure by which plaintiff will demonstrate proof of sufficient 

funds to cover the costs of the deposition by January 31, 2017. (ECF No. 49 at 1-2.) In addition, 

the parties have agreed to a tentative deposition date of March 13, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., at the 

institution in which plaintiff is housed. (ECF No. 49 at 2.) 

On January 27, 2017, plaintiff filed proof of available funds to depose Dr. Barnett.

It is unclear whether defendants will need to revise their pending motion for summary 

judgment in light of Dr. Barnett’s deposition. However, the deposition may impact plaintiff’s 

Case 2:15-cv-00638-MCE-KJN Document 53 Filed 02/06/17 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

opposition. Therefore, good cause appearing, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is 

denied without prejudice to its renewal following the deposition of Dr. Barnett. Defendants may 

file an amended motion for summary judgment, or they may opt to simply file a re-notice of their 

motion for summary judgment, incorporating the April 8, 2016 filings by reference. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 30) is denied without prejudice 

to its renewal; and

2. Defendants may re-file or re-notice their motion for summary judgment within 

fourteen days from Dr. Barnett’s deposition, which shall be briefed pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

Dated: February 6, 2017

/witk0638.msj.ren

Case 2:15-cv-00638-MCE-KJN Document 53 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 2