Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00513/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00513-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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

05cv0513

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR DUANE JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. WOODFORD, Director CDC, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05cv0513-L(NLS)

ORDER OVERRULING

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO

DISCOVERY ORDER 

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se in this prisoner civil rights action, filed an objection pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) to the Magistrate Judge’s April 19, 2007 Order Denying

Plaintiff’s Motions to (1) Appoint a Shorthand Reporter; and (2) Take Oral Depositions of

Defendants and Witnesses. Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.

District court review of magistrate judge orders on non-dispositive motions is limited. 

Discovery motions, such as the motions at issue here, are considered non-dispositive. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Civ. Loc. R. 72.1(b). A district court judge may reconsider a magistrate

judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion only “where it has been shown that the magistrate’s

order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. Proc.

72(a). 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Appointed Shorthand Reporter Authorized to Administer

Oaths for the Taking of Depositions was denied as moot because leave of court is not required. 

Case 3:05-cv-00513-L-NLS Document 87 Filed 06/26/07 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 05cv0513

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30. Plaintiff does not provide any authority or argument that this ruling was

clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Take Oral Deposition of Defendants and Witnesses listed several

witnesses whose depositions Plaintiff sought to compel. Plaintiff provided no argument why a

court order was necessary to compel these depositions. For the first time in his objections

Plaintiff argues that an order was required because (1) he sought to depose a person confined to

prison; (2) he sought to depose more than ten individuals; and (3) Defendants had refused to

make themselves and the identified witnesses available for depositions. Although these are

grounds necessitating a court order, Plaintiff failed to present them in his motion. Furthermore,

these grounds, except for the number of depositions, were not evident on the face of Plaintiff’s

motion. The incarcerated witness was not mentioned in Plaintiff’s initial motion either by name

or by description as an inmate, and Plaintiff made no reference to Defendant’s refusal to comply. 

Although one could gather that Plaintiff sought to take more than ten depositions (the motion

lists twenty proposed deponents), Plaintiff did not provide any argument why this was necessary. 

Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s order, denying Plaintiff’s motion as moot, was not clearly

erroneous or contrary to law.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 26, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. NITA L. STORMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-00513-L-NLS Document 87 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 2