Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01516/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01516-30/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

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

ANTWOINE BEALER,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER S. RIOS and

SERGEANT R. BRANNUM,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG-PC

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO SCHEDULE DEPOSITIONS

(ECF No. 139.)

ORDER FOR PARTIES TO MEET AND 

CONFER NO LATER THAN MAY 27, 

2016

ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND 

PLAINTIFF A COPY OF RULES 28, 29, 

AND 30 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF 

CIVIL PROCEDURE

This order directs the parties to meet and confer to discuss a plan to enable Plaintiff to 

take telephonic depositions of defendants Rios and Brannum before June 27, 2016. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Antwoine Bealer (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

At the telephonic status conference held on April 28, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff 

leave to take depositions by telephone of the two Defendants, Officer S. Rios and Sergeant R. 

Brannum, limiting the deposition of each witness to no more than two hours. (See ECF No. 

138 at 3-4.) Plaintiff was required to schedule the depositions by sending out deposition 

subpoenas to defense counsel no later than May 12, 2016, notifying the deponents of dates for 

depositions to be held before June 27, 2016. (Id.) On or before May 12, 2016, Plaintiff was 

required to file proof, such as a copy of his trust account statement, that he is able to pay, in 

advance of the depositions, for the services of a court officer, the recording of the depositions, 

and any required witness fees, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30. (Id.)

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 140 Filed 05/19/16 Page 1 of 3
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

On May 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed notice that he has funds available in his prison trust 

account to pay for depositions. (ECF No. 135.) On May 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to 

set depositions. (ECF No. 139.)

II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

Plaintiff seeks assistance to schedule telephonic depositions for defendants Rios and 

Brannum. Plaintiff advises the Court that he would like to set the depositions for Wednesday 

June 22, 2016, starting at 9:30 a.m. with Officer Rios, take a break at 11:30 a.m., and then 

resume with Officer Brannum at 1:00 p.m. Plaintiff also would like to receive transcripts of the 

depositions, after he has read the transcripts and made any corrections. Plaintiff states that “it 

was established with the Court” that he would provide approximately $300.00 for the costs of 

the depositions. (ECF No. 138 at 1-2.) Plaintiff inquires whether the Court will “cover” any 

additional expenses or provide a stenographer to record and transcribe the depositions. Plaintiff 

is unsure how to make arrangements for the depositions.

Discussion

At the April 28, 2016 hearing, the Court generally discussed the requirements for giving 

notice and holding depositions, and the types of costs involved. Plaintiff represented that he 

had funds available – approximately $300-400 – to pay the costs of the depositions. The Court 

did not estimate how much the depositions would cost or establish a minimum amount that 

Plaintiff would need to pay. Plaintiff was advised that he would be required to make 

arrangements himself and pay all of the costs for the depositions, including costs to hire a court 

officer, record the deposition proceedings, and pay any witness fees. Plaintiff was also advised 

that the Court does not have any funds available to assist Plaintiff with the costs of the 

depositions.

Rules 28, 29, and 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set forth the requirements 

for taking depositions by oral examination. The Court shall direct the Clerk to send Plaintiff 

copies of those Rules. To hold depositions of the two Defendants, Plaintiff must give proper 

notice of the depositions pursuant to the Rules, must be able to depose the Defendants in

///

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 140 Filed 05/19/16 Page 2 of 3
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

compliance with the Rules, and must be able and willing to retain an officer to take responses 

and prepare the record. Fed. R Civ. P. 30(b). 

The parties shall be required to meet and confer, no later than May 27, 2016, to discuss 

arrangements for Plaintiff to take telephonic depositions of defendants Rios and Brannum 

before June 27, 2016. The parties shall discuss the estimated costs to Plaintiff, including costs 

of transcripts, and whether Plaintiff has sufficient funds available to proceed. Unless the 

parties agree that Plaintiff has insufficient funds to proceed, the parties shall discuss what 

Plaintiff needs to do to meet the requirements of the Rules for giving notice, hiring an officer, 

and arranging for recording of the proceedings.

If the parties are unable to resolve these issues, they shall file written notice to the Court 

within a week of their meet-and-confer session.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to schedule depositions, filed on May 16, 2016, is 

RESOLVED by this order;

2. No later than May 27, 2016, the parties shall meet and confer to discuss 

arrangements for Plaintiff to take telephonic depositions of defendants Rios and 

Brannum before June 27, 2016, and the estimated costs to Plaintiff to take the 

depositions, as directed by this order;

3. If the parties are unable to resolve these issues, they shall file written notice to 

the Court within a week of their meeting; and

4. The Clerk=s Office shall send Plaintiff copies of Rules 28, 29, and 30 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 140 Filed 05/19/16 Page 3 of 3