Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01599/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01599-17/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

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

MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

A. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-CV-01599-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ EX 

PARTE MOTION TO TAKE PLAINTIFF’S 

DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR 

RESTRAINTS

(ECF No. 93)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO TAKE DEFENDANTS’ 

DEPOSITIONS AND SET THE 

CONDITIONS UPON WHICH 

DEPOSITIONS ARE CONDUCTED (ECF 

No. 91)

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Matthew James Griffin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently 

proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for excessive force and for deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants 

Johnson, Gonzales, Valdez, Munoz, Sexton, Ross, Thor, Doe, Kul, Busch, Bell, and Smith. 

Currently before the Court are motions by the parties concerning deposition matters: (1) 

Defendants motion to take Plaintiff’s deposition and to request restraints during that deposition, 

Case 1:13-cv-01599-LJO-BAM Document 95 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 5
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

filed September 9, 2016 (ECF No. 93); and (2) Plaintiff’s motion to take Defendants deposition, 

and set conditions for how depositions in this case shall be taken, filed September 6, 2016, (ECF 

No. 91). The motions are deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

II. Defendants’ Motion to Take Deposition and For Restraints

Defendants seek an order allowing them to take Plaintiff’s deposition on September 23, 

2016 at 10:00 a.m., at Alexandria Correctional Institution (“ACI”) in Taylorsville, North 

Carolina, where Plaintiff is currently incarcerated. (ECF No. 91.) Defendants have served 

Plaintiff with a notice of deposition, (ECF No. 93-2), and a subpoena duces tecum, (ECF No. 93-

3). In a declaration in support, defense counsel states that Plaintiff’s deposition is necessary to 

adequately defend against his claims, but the institution will not allow Plaintiff’s deposition 

without a court order. (ECF No. 93, p. 2.) 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(B), the deposition of a deponent who is 

confined in prison may be taken with leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(B). Leave must be 

granted, to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2). As Defendants seek to depose 

Plaintiff regarding his claims and their defenses in this matter, the proposed deposition is wellwithin the scope of discovery, and does not appear to exceed any of the limitations set forth in 

Rule 26(b)(2). Thus, leave to depose Plaintiff in this matter is granted. 

Defense counsel declares that the deposition must be taken in person because ACI does 

not have video-conferencing capabilities. However, defense counsel is concerned about safety, 

due to the nature of Plaintiff’s commitment offence, disciplinary history, and violent character. 

(ECF No. 93, p. 3, ¶ 5). Defendants attach documentation in support, including disciplinary and 

housing placement records, reports, and letters. (ECF Nos. 93-4, 93-5.) Defense counsel further 

declares that an official at ACI informed her that Plaintiff will not be restrained, and correctional 

guards will not be present, at the deposition. (ECF No. 93, pp. 2-3, ¶¶ 3-4.) 

As a result, Defendants further request an order requiring at least two guards be in the 

room at all times during Plaintiff’s deposition, and that Plaintiff be placed in full restraints, 

including ankle, wrist, and waist restraints, or that Plaintiff be confined to a holding cell during 

the deposition. (Id. at 2.) This request is denied. The pendency of this action does not provide 

Case 1:13-cv-01599-LJO-BAM Document 95 Filed 09/12/16 Page 2 of 5
3

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

this Court with general jurisdiction over the prison officials and custody staff at ACI. 

Arrangements regarding the nature of Plaintiff’s deposition must be made with the officials and 

staff at ACI, including in regards to any concerns about safety and security. “Prison officials 

retain some discretion as to whether to permit an incarcerated litigant to personally appear to 

take a deposition, taking into consideration factors such as cost, inconvenience, danger, and the 

disruption to correctional operations.” Dearing v. Mahalma, No. 1:11-CV-204, 2012 WL 

524438, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 16, 2012). Although the Court is granting leave to Defendants to 

depose Plaintiff, the Court defers to the prison officials and custody staff at ACI regarding their 

policies and procedures of the manner in which that deposition may be taken.

Although defense counsel believes that ACI does not have video-conferencing 

capabilities, the Court will grant leave for Defendants to depose Plaintiff by video-conferencing 

or telephone, should such arrangements be available through other means, and if Defendants do 

not wish to depose Plaintiff in person under the parameters permitted by ACI. 

III. Plaintiff’s Combined Motion

Plaintiff states in his motion that he seeks an order allowing him to take the deposition of 

each of the named Defendants, and setting conditions under which depositions will be taken in 

this matter. The bulk of his motion is dedicated to describing the conditions sought when taking 

depositions at Plaintiff’s institution. As discussed above, the Court does not have jurisdiction 

over the officials and staff over ACI generally, and thus it cannot grant any order requiring 

depositions to be run in any certain manner within the institution.

Regarding Plaintiff’s request for an order to depose each of the Defendants, the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure govern the manner in which such depositions may be taken, either by 

oral or written questions. Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the procedure 

by which depositions are taken by oral examination. “A party who wants to depose a person by 

oral questions must give reasonable written notice to every other party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1). 

“The party who notices the deposition must state in the notice the method for recording the 

testimony.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3)(A). The noticing party must also bear costs of recording the 

deposition. Id. In addition, that party must arrange for an officer to conduct the depositions 

Case 1:13-cv-01599-LJO-BAM Document 95 Filed 09/12/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

(absent a stipulation by all parties otherwise). Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(5)(A). 

Depositions by written questions must be taken pursuant to the procedures set forth under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31. As explained by another court:

The deposition upon written questions basically would work as follows: 

The prisoner would send out a notice of deposition that identifies (a) the 

deponent (i.e., the witness), (b) the officer taking the deposition, (c) a list 

of the exact questions to be asked of the witness, and (d) the date and time 

for the deposition to occur. The defendant would have time to send to the 

prisoner written cross-examination questions for the witness, the prisoner 

would then have time to send to defendant written re-direct questions for 

the witness, and the defendant would have time to send to the prisoner 

written re-cross-examination questions for the witness[.]

Harrell v. Jail, No. 2:14-cv-1690-TLN-CKD P, 2015 WL 8539037, *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 

2015). (quoting Brady v. Fishback, No. 1:06-cv-00136-ALA (P), 2008 WL 1925242, at *1-2 

(E.D. Cal. April 30, 2008). Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status also does not entitle him to a 

waiver of any of the costs associated with this form of deposition; instead, he must pay the 

necessary deposition officer fee, court reporter fee, and costs for a transcript. Id. (citations 

omitted)

To be clear, Plaintiff does not need the Court’s permission to depose any of the 

Defendants. Thus, his request for an order granting him leave to depose is denied as unnecessary. 

However, Plaintiff must follow the applicable rule and bear the costs for any depositions he 

seeks to take in this matter, as described above. His in forma pauperis status does not entitle him 

to free services from the Court, such as scheduling, conducting, or recording the deposition, or to 

utilize Defendant’s resources for the deposition. See, e.g., Brooks v. Tate, No 1:11-cv-01503-

AWI-DLB PC, 2013 WL 4049053, *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2013) (indigent prisoner not entitled to 

take the depositions of defendant and non-party witnesses during his own deposition). To the 

extent Plaintiff seeks an order for Defendants or defense counsel to make the necessary 

arrangements, the Court will not order them to do so. 

///

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01599-LJO-BAM Document 95 Filed 09/12/16 Page 4 of 5
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

IV. Conclusion and Order

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ ex parte motion to take Plaintiff’s deposition and request for

restraints, (ECF No. 93) is granted in part and denied in part, as follows:

(a) Defendants are granted leave to depose Plaintiff, in person at the 

Alexandria Correctional Institution in Taylorsville, North Carolina, at the date and time noticed 

by Defendants, and at the discretion of the institution’s officials and correctional staff; 

(b) in the alternative, Defendants are granted leave to conduct Plaintiff’s oral 

deposition by video-conference or by telephone; 

(c) Defendants’ request to order the Alexandria Correctional Institution to 

have security guards present at the deposition with Plaintiff in full restraints, or to have Plaintiff 

in a holding cell during the deposition, is denied; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an order to take the deposition of each named Defendant, 

and for an order setting the conditions of depositions in this matter (ECF No. 91), is DENIED in 

its entirety. Plaintiff is informed that leave of court is not required for him to depose any of 

Defendants; and

3. The parties are reminded that all depositions in this matter must be completed by 

October 1, 2016, under the Court’s discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 48.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01599-LJO-BAM Document 95 Filed 09/12/16 Page 5 of 5