Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00067/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00067-10/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD LONDON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0067 GEB GGH P

vs.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s November 3, 2005, motion to strike his

deposition. For the following reasons, this motion is denied.

On October 27, 2005, plaintiff was deposed by counsel for defendant Sogge, i.e.

Todd Vollmerhausen, and counsel for defendants B. Williams, D. Williams and Douglas, i.e.

James C. Phillips. Plaintiff moves to “strike” this deposition on the following grounds.

First, plaintiff argues that defendants did not seek leave of court to depose him. 

The discovery order filed February 23, 2005, authorized defendants to depose plaintiff. 

Accordingly, this objection is without merit.

Plaintiff next argues that he did not receive adequate notice of the deposition. 

Plaintiff argues that the only notice of deposition he received was from Mr. Vollmerhausen. 

Case 2:04-cv-00067-GEB-GGH Document 67 Filed 01/31/06 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

2

Plaintiff contends that Mr. Phillips was not authorized to ask him questions because he did not

serve plaintiff with a separate notice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b) discusses the requirements for

noticing depositions. This court is aware of no authority requiring separate counsel for 

defendants to each submit a notice of deposition. The case cited by plaintiff for the proposition

that each counsel must submit a separate notice, Lauson v. Stop-N-Go Foods, Inc., 133 F.R.D. 92

(W.D.N.Y. 1990), does not stand for this proposition. Plaintiff received adequate notice of the

deposition. Accordingly, this objection is without merit.

Plaintiff next argues that at the beginning of the deposition, the deposition officer

failed to put on the record her name as well as the name of all parties present as required by Fed.

R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4). This objection is waived unless it was made by plaintiff at the deposition. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(3)(B). Whether plaintiff made this objection at the deposition is not clear

from the record. Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion on this ground because he

has not demonstrated that he made this objection at the deposition.

Finally, plaintiff argues that the deposition was conducted in bad faith because he

did not know who Mr. Phillips was until 1 1⁄2 hours into the deposition. Again, this objection is

waived unless it was raised at the deposition. Fed. R Civ. P. 32(d)(3)(B). The court will deny

plaintiff’s motion on this ground because he has not demonstrated that he made this objection at 

his deposition.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 3, 2005,

motion to quash and/or strike is denied.

DATED: 1/31/06 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

lon67.dep

Case 2:04-cv-00067-GEB-GGH Document 67 Filed 01/31/06 Page 2 of 2