Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01948/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01948-22/pdf.json

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

---

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

JAMES PABLO PATTERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN AND HOUSING SUPERVISOR,

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUBPOENA AND TO COMPEL 

DEPOSITION BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS

(Doc. 84)

30 DAY DEADLINE

In this action, Plaintiff claims Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's 

safety under the Eighth. (Docs. 21, 22.) On September 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to for a 

subpoena to compel depositions by written questions of the warden and/or housing supervisor as 

well as five non-parties, based on their failure to respond to the questions he served by mail on 

July 17, 2013. (Doc. 84.)1 For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

I. Analysis

There is no entitlement to take a deposition of a party or non-party. To do so, even by 

written question, a party must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Depositions by 

written questions entail more than mailing questions to the deponents and awaiting their written 

 

1

It is noted that Plaintiff refers to exhibits which he submitted in support of another motion (Doc. 83) in support of the 

current motion. Plaintiff is admonished not to engage in this practice in the future. Each motion that Plaintiff files 

must comply with Local Rule 230(b) which requires briefs, affidavits, and copies of all documentary evidence be filed 

with the motion.

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 90 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 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

2

responses; rather, an officer must be retained to take responses and prepare the record. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 31(b). Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. His motion to compel suggests neither an 

ability or a willingness to pay an officer to take the responses for the record. 

Plaintiff’s request that “subpoenas be served for written deposition” where the Court 

“deems proper and at no expense” does not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As 

correctly stated by Defendants, Rule 31(a)(3) requires that notice of deposition by written question 

must “state the name or descriptive title and the address of the officer before whom the deposition 

will be taken.” The Court may not designate a location for Plaintiff’s written depositions to be 

conducted. 

Further, it appears that Plaintiff labors under the misunderstanding that a deposition by 

written question is the same as propounding interrogatories; it is not that simple. Rather, the 

purpose of conducting the deposition by written question in front of an officer is because any such 

deposition officer is required to take the deponent’s testimony in response, verbatim, to each 

question as well as to prepare and certify the deposition transcript. Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(b). For all 

practical purposes, a deposition by written questions differs from an in person deposition only in 

as much as Plaintiff would not be present to ask the questions orally. 

In addition, Plaintiff must pay the deposition officer for his or her services. If Plaintiff is 

able and willing to compensate an officer to take responses and prepare the record, he may notify 

the Court within thirty days, accompanied by an offer of proof regarding the financial ability to do 

so.

2

 The Court will construe Plaintiff’s failure to notify the Court within this time period as an 

abandonment of the request.

///

///

///

///

///

 

2 Any such offer of proof must, at a minimum, show both an estimate from a qualifying officer to conduct the 

deposition as to his or her fees per written deposition and both Plaintiff’s willingness and ability to compensate for all 

such services.

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 90 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling 

depositions by written questions of the unidentified housing supervisory and various non-parties, 

filed September 2, 2015 (Doc. 84), is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 90 Filed 12/08/15 Page 3 of 3