Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00252/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00252-6/pdf.json

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY PEREZ HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0252 GEB EFB P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 9, 2007, plaintiff filed a request for an order permitting him

to propound specific questions to Officer Swoops, a non-party, at a deposition by written

questions. On October 15, 2007, defendants filed an opposition. For the reasons explained

below, plaintiff’s request is denied.

Generally, a party may obtain the testimony of any person by a deposition upon written

questions without obtaining leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(a)(1). However, leave of court is

not required here. It is required only “if the person to be examined is confined in prison or if,

without the written stipulation of the parties

(A) a proposed deposition would result in more than ten depositions being

taken under this rule or Rule 30 by the plaintiffs, or by the defendants, or

by third-party defendants;

Case 2:07-cv-00252-GEB-EFB Document 21 Filed 10/26/07 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

2

(B) the person to be examined has already been deposed in the case; or

(C) a party seeks to take a deposition before the time specified in Rule 26(d).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(a)(2). Plaintiff asserts that Officer Swoops is a prison guard. Thus, it appears

that the person to be deposed is not confined in prison. Plaintiff does not state whether he has

taken this person’s deposition before or whether he has taken any other depositions in this

action. Furthermore, Rule 26(d) does not apply in this case because plaintiff is confined in

prison and proceeds without counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(E)(iv), (d). None of the

circumstances requiring an order of the court to take a deposition upon written questions are

present here.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s October 9, 2007, request is denied as

unnecessary.

Dated: October 25, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00252-GEB-EFB Document 21 Filed 10/26/07 Page 2 of 2