Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03056/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03056-9/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

CRYSTAL LEANN “CLARIDA”

FITZWATER, et al. PLAINTIFFS

v. Civil No. 05-3056

JOHNNY L. NICHOLS, et al. DEFENDANTS 

O R D E R

Now on this 2nd day of June, 2006, the above referenced

matter comes on for this Court’s consideration of Plaintiffs’

Oppositions and Objections to Defendants’ Notices of Deposition

and Plaintiffs’ Notice of Availability (document #123). The

Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders as

follows: 

1. The plaintiffs initiated this action on September 22,

2005. An amended complaint was filed herein on November 9, 2005,

naming as defendants Johnny L. Nichols, John Putman, Randel Earl

Clarida, Danny Hickman, Richard Bogue, Linda Adams, and Zeola

Yeager. 

2. Following various motions filed by the parties, a Civil

Trial Scheduling Order was issued by this Court on May 9, 2006.

The scheduling order sets the case for trial by jury during the

week of December 4, 2006, and directs that discovery be completed

no later than September 5, 2006. 

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 127 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

3. On May 23, 2006, a pleading entitled Plaintiffs’

Oppositions and Objections to Defendants’ Notices of Deposition

and Plaintiffs’ Notice of Availability (document #123) was filed

with the Court, wherein plaintiffs:

* object to certain Notices of Deposition propounded by

the defendants;

* argue that the Notices of Deposition “fail to provide

reasonable notice as required by the applicable court rules”;

* argue that the parties have not agreed to the dates,

times, or subject matter of the depositions; and that defendants

have not paid “necessary witness fees and travel expenses”; and

* argue that the depositions were scheduled in bad faith

“to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the Plaintiffs.”

However, the pleading doesn’t mention the dates on which the

defendants seek to conduct the depositions, nor are there attached

to it copies of the deposition notices served. 

4. Separate defendant, Johnny L. Nichols, has responded to

the plaintiffs’ motion, attaching the deposition notices at issue.

According to Nichols, each of the named plaintiffs was served

with a Notice of Deposition on May 4, 2006, which notices provided

for the depositions of the three named plaintiffs to take place on

June 6 and 7, 2006, beginning at 9:00 a.m., in the basement

conference room of the Boone County Courthouse in Harrison,

Arkansas. 

Nichols argues that the deposition notices are proper; and,

that the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate them should be denied.

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 127 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

5. In addition, separate defendants, Danny Hickman and

Richard Bogue, responded to the plaintiffs’ motion, attaching the

postal documents evidencing the plaintiffs’ receipt of the Notices

of Deposition. 

Hickman and Bogue argue that the Notices of Deposition are

proper and give “reasonable notice” as required by the applicable

rules. Hickman and Bogue further state that the requested

depositions are not intended to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the

plaintiffs, but, rather, have been scheduled to commence the

necessary discovery in this case. 

6. Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

for “Depositions Upon Oral Examination.” Specifically, “[a] Party

may take the testimony of any person, including a party, by

deposition upon oral examination without leave of court.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 30(a)(1). Further, section (b) provides for “notice” of

such depositions. Specifically, 

[a] party desiring to take the deposition of any person

upon oral examination shall give reasonable notice in

writing . . . . The notice shall state the time and

place for taking the deposition and the name and address

of each person to be examined . . . .

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1). Witness fees and travel expenses are

not required for the deposition of a party. 

Here, the notices propounded by the defendants were for

depositions of the three named parties on June 6 and 7, 2006. 

In light of the fact that the notices were served on May 4,

2006 (more than a month before the deposition dates), the Court

believes they provided “reasonable notice” and specified a

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 127 Filed 06/02/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 4 of 4

reasonable, public location in the city in which the action is

pending. Accordingly, the defendants are entitled to conduct the

depositions of the three named plaintiffs at the date, time, and

location set forth in the Notices of Depositions and plaintiffs’

challenge to the same must be rejected. 

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that plaintiffs’ objections to

the planned depositions, as set out in Plaintiffs’ Oppositions and

Objections to Defendants’ Notices of Deposition and Plaintiffs’

Notice of Availability (document #123) should be, and they hereby

are, overruled. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 127 Filed 06/02/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>