Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01329/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01329-29/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLOYD SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. PALMER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01329-LJO-SKO PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DEPOSE PLAINTIFF BY

VIDEOCONFERENCE

(Doc. 111)

Plaintiff Floyd Scott, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 29, 2009. On February 8, 2013, Defendants filed a motion seeking leave

to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition by videoconference. Plaintiff filed an opposition on February 21,

2013, Defendants filed a reply on February 22, 2013, and the motion has been submitted upon the

record. Local Rule 230(l).

Pursuant to the discovery and scheduling order filed on June 28, 2011, Defendants were

granted leave to depose Plaintiff as long as the notice of deposition is served fourteen days before

the deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(B). Defendants now seek leave to depose Plaintiff by

videoconference due to budgetary considerations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4). Defendants’ counsel is

located in Sacramento, California while Plaintiff is incarcerated approximately three-hundred sixtyfive miles away in Lancaster, California.

Plaintiff opposes the motion on the grounds that he has a right to be deposed in person, he

is located only one hour away by airplane, and he wants to be able to confer with the Court should

an issue arise.

1

Case 1:09-cv-01329-SKO Document 123 Filed 02/22/13 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

Plaintiff is not entitled to be deposed in person. The Court has the discretion to permit a

deposition by remote means. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4). While Plaintiff may be less concerned than

Defendants about the expenditure of government resources, as severe budget constraints continue

to plague local, state, and federal governments, depositions by remote means are becoming much

more common as a reasonable means to address scarce government resources. The Court has

granted such requests in the past and it continues to find depositions by videoconference to be

reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.

The ability to reach the Court if necessary is a non-issue, as the parties may contact the Court

regardless of whether the deposition is in person or via videoconference. However, Plaintiff is

cautioned that Defendants have a right to depose him and while the Court is generally available to

assist parties during the course of a deposition if a legitimate issue arises, the issue must be

legitimate.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for leave to depose Plaintiff by videoconference, filed on

February 8, 2013, is HEREBY GRANTED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01329-SKO Document 123 Filed 02/22/13 Page 2 of 2