Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_06-cv-03002/USCOURTS-arwd-3_06-cv-03002-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

ROBERT D. JOHNSTON; and

MELANIE K. JOHNSTON PLAINTIFFS

v. Civil No. 06-3002

JASON BRISCO, in his official 

capacity as an officer of the Harrison

Arkansas Police Department and in his

individual capacity; et al., DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the court is the motion to quash filed by the plaintiffs (Doc. 99). In the motion,

plaintiffs indicate they received a notice on September 19, 2006, from defense counsel Jason

Owens setting their depositions for October 18, 2006, in the basement of the Boone County

Courthouse. 

Plaintiffs object to counsel not consulting them before scheduling the depositions.

Plaintiffs also object to the need for oral depositions. Plaintiffs maintain the first amended

complaint and exhibits are sufficient to establish the facts of the complaint. 

Plaintiffs state they refuse under any circumstances to be ordered to appear in the

basement or any other location in the Boone County Courthouse, or Harrison, Arkansas, or

Boone County, Arkansas. They contend defense counsel has scheduled the depositions in the

Boone County Courthouse merely to harass them. Plaintiffs allege they have suffered

monumental injustices in Harrison and Boone County.

Case 3:06-cv-03002-RTD Document 110 Filed 10/12/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

The motion to quash is denied. Rule 30(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provides that “[a] party desiring to take the deposition of any person upon oral examination shall

give reasonable notice in writing to every other party to the action. The notice shall state the

time and place for taking the deposition and the name and address of each person to be examined

. . . . .” While it is preferable for there to be cooperation between the parties with respect to the

scheduling of depositions, Rule 30 clearly allows the scheduling of depositions by notice. 

With respect to the scheduling of the depositions in Boone County, the court notes this

case was filed by the plaintiffs in the Harrison Division. Boone County is within the Harrison

Division. Plaintiffs have named as defendants individuals employed by Boone County. There

appears to be nothing improper about the scheduling of the depositions in Boone County. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of October 2006.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:06-cv-03002-RTD Document 110 Filed 10/12/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>