Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05894/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05894-13/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MING CHING JIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-05894-REC-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RULE 56(F)

MOTION

(Doc. 87)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO DEPOSE

WITNESSES

(Doc. 87)

ORDER VACATING DEPOSITIONS

NOTICED FOR JANUARY 10, 11, 12, AND

13, 2006

(Docs. 91-94)

Plaintiff Ming Ching Jin (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment and defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. On December 23, 3005, plaintiff

filed a motion seeking permission to depose defendants in order to support his opposition to

defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In addition, plaintiff seeks leave to depose three nonparty witnesses. On December 30, 2005, plaintiff filed his opposition to defendants’ cross-motion

for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff’s contention that he needs to depose defendants in order to oppose their crossmotion for summary judgment is belied by the fact that he already filed his opposition to the crossCase 1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO Document 96 Filed 01/05/06 Page 1 of 5
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

motion. In addition, plaintiff’s motion is not sufficient to obtain a continuance of defendants’ crossmotion pending further discovery in the form of depositions. 

Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

(f) When Affidavits are Unavailable. Should it appear from the

affidavits of a party opposing the motion that the party cannot for

reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party's

opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may

order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions

to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is

just.

In order to prevail on a Rule 56(f) motion, the moving party “must show (1) that they have

set forth in affidavit form the specific facts that they hope to elicit from further discovery, (2) that

the facts sought exist, and (3) that these sought-after facts are ‘essential’ to resist the summary

judgment motion.” State of California v. Campbell, 138 F.2d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998). “In making

a Rule 56(f) motion, a party opposing summary judgment ‘must make clear what information is

sought and how it would preclude summary judgment.’” Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th

Cir. 1998) (quoting Garrett v. City and County of San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 1518 (9th Cir.

1987)). The burden is on the party seeking to conduct additional discovery to put forth sufficient

facts to show that the evidence sought exists. Volk v. D. A. Davidson & Co., 816 F.2d 1406, 1416

(9th Cir. 1987).

In this instance, plaintiff has not met his burden. Plaintiff contends that some of defendants’

undisputed facts in their cross-motion are false, and that the truth cannot be revealed without

deposing them because their signatures are missing from their declarations submitted in support of

their cross-motion. (Doc. 87, Motion, 1:19-23.) The declarations on file with the court bear

defendants’ electronic signatures. Assuming for the sake of argument that the copies served on

plaintiff did not bear defendants’ signatures, it is unclear why this omission would prevent plaintiff

from opposing the motion or require that plaintiff depose defendants. Also, as previously stated,

plaintiff in fact opposed the motion one week after filing the motion seeking leave to depose

defendants. Accordingly, to the extent that plaintiff’s motion for leave to depose defendants can also

be construed as a Rule 56(f) motion, the motion must be denied. 

///

Case 1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO Document 96 Filed 01/05/06 Page 2 of 5
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

 The deposition must be conducted by an officer authorized to administer oaths and take testimony. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 28, 30(b).

2

 Pursuant to the court’s discovery order, the thirty-day time period provided for in Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 34 is extended to forty-five days. (Doc. 32.)

3

Turning to plaintiff’s request for leave to depose defendants, plaintiff has a right to depose

defendants without court permission, although the reality of plaintiff’s incarceration may require

some very minimal assistance from the court in terms of facilitation. Plaintiff may depose

defendants via recording, as his deposition notices indicate he plans to do. However, plaintiff must

bear the cost of the recording, must bear the cost of transcription if he intends to use the deposition

as evidence in a proceeding, and must arrange for an officer

1

 to conduct the deposition. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 30(b). To the extent that plaintiff is seeking leave of court to depose defendants without

complying with any of these requirements, plaintiff’s motion is denied.

If plaintiff is aware of these requirements and is able to satisfy them, he does not need leave

of court to depose defendants. However, plaintiff’s deposition notices demonstrate that he also seeks

the production of documents by defendants at their depositions. (Docs. 91-94.) As a result, plaintiff

must notice the depositions at least forty-five days in advance, as reasonable written notice of

deposition must take into account the time allowed to respond to a request for production of

documents.2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(5). 

Because plaintiff did not notice defendants’ depositions at least forty-five days in advance,

the depositions set for January 10, 11, 12, and 13, 2006, are hereby vacated. If plaintiff is able to

depose defendants in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, he may re-notice the

depositions for a time not less than forty-five from the date of the notice. The court notes that on

January 4, 2006, defendants filed a motion seeking a protective order shielding them from all

discovery pending resolution of the motion and cross-motion for summary judgment. The court does

not reach that motion at this time because plaintiff has not had an opportunity to respond. Local

Rule 78-230(m). 

Finally, plaintiff also seeks leave of court to depose three unidentified non-party witnesses.

Again, plaintiff does not need the court’s permission to depose non-party witnesses, although the

Case 1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO Document 96 Filed 01/05/06 Page 3 of 5
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 3

 The daily witness fee for each witness is $40.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b). 

4

reality of plaintiff’s incarceration may require court assistance. In order to secure the appearance of

non-party witnesses at their depositions, the witnesses must be personally served with subpoenas that

are accompanied by money orders for witness fees and, if applicable, travel expenses.3 Fed. R. Civ.

P. 45; 28 U.S.C. § 1821. Plaintiff is reminded that this action is proceeding against defendants

Rodriguez, Aguirre, Quinn-Robicheau, and Vargas only for retaliation. The non-party witnesses

plaintiff seeks to depose must possess knowledge relevant to plaintiff’s retaliation claims. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

To the extent that plaintiff is seeking a court order allowing plaintiff to depose the non-party

witnesses without complying Rule 45 and without submitting the appropriatewitness fees, plaintiff’s

motion is denied. Also, as with party witnesses, plaintiff must bear the costs of recording the

depositions, must bear the costs of transcribing the depositions if he intends to use them as evidence

in a proceeding, and must arrange for the depositions to be conducted before an officer. If plaintiff

is willing and able to depose non-party witnesses in compliance with these requirements, plaintiff

does not need leave of court, although plaintiff will need assistance concerning the issuance of

subpoenas and service of the subpoenas by the Marshal. 

As set forth herein, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Rule 56(f) motion, to the extent that plaintiff is seeking this form of relief,

is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to depose defendants and non-party witnesses, to the

extent that plaintiff is seeking leave to conduct depositions without complying with

all of the requirements, is DENIED; and

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO Document 96 Filed 01/05/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

3. Defendants’ depositions, set to be conducted by plaintiff on January 10, 11, 12, and

13, 2006, are VACATED, based on plaintiff’s failure to notice them at least fortyfive days in advance.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO Document 96 Filed 01/05/06 Page 5 of 5