Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00001/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00001-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

Plaintiff Angel Rodriguez is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2674.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to depose correctional officer Ramos by 

written questions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31, filed December 19, 2019. Defendant 

filed an opposition on January 8, 2020, and Plaintiff did not file a reply. Local Rule 230(l). 

I.

DISCUSSION

A deposition by written questions must be conducted in compliance with Rule 31 of the 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Depositions by written questions entail more than mailing questions 

to the deponents and awaiting their written responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 31. Pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 31:

ANGEL RODRIGUEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:19-cv-00001-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO DEPOSE CORRECTIONAL 

OFFICER RAMOS BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS 

[ECF No. 27]

Case 1:19-cv-00001-DAD-SAB Document 30 Filed 01/21/20 Page 1 of 2
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

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 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, at1-2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2015) 

(quoting Brady v. Fishback, No. 1:06-cv-0136 ALA (P), 2008 WL 1925242, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 

30, 2008)). Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status does not entitle him to a waiver of any costs associated 

with this form of deposition; rather, Plaintiff must pay the necessary deposition officer fee, court 

reporter fee, and costs for a transcript. Brady v. Fishback, 2008 WL 1925242, at *2. 

Plaintiff seeks to take a Rule 31 deposition by written questions of correctional officer Ramos 

because the United States “objected due to the fact Ramos was not a party” in its responses to 

interrogatories and requests for admission.1 (ECF No. 27.) However, Plaintiff has not sought to a 

further response to the interrogatories and/or requests for admission by way of a Rule 37 motion to 

compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements set 

forth in Rule 31, and his request for the deposition of officer Ramos by written question must be 

denied, without prejudice. Plaintiff has not indicated that he has paid the necessary deposition officer 

fee, court reporter, or provided a list of the exact questions to be asked of the witness. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to depose officer Ramos by written questions is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 The United States submits that it also responded to each request for admission with an admission or denial. The United 

States also produced documents in response to his request for production, which is uncontested. The United States further 

submits that the documents produced substantively addressed the entire discovery, including interrogatories. 

Case 1:19-cv-00001-DAD-SAB Document 30 Filed 01/21/20 Page 2 of 2