Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01050/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01050-7/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABDIKIDAR AHMED,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. RINGLER et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1050 MCE DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks relief 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff has filed a request for additional time to conduct discovery, which defendant

Ringler has opposed. Under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may 

modify the scheduling order for “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” 

standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” See Johnson v. 

Mammoth Re-creations, 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). In this regard, the court may modify 

a scheduling order deadline “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party 

seeking the extension.” Id. See also Zivkovich v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 

1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (“If the party seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry 

should end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.”). 

/////

Case 2:13-cv-01050-MCE-DB Document 45 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 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

2

In this case, plaintiff’s motion does not establish good cause to modify the discovery and 

scheduling order. Specifically, plaintiff has not described what efforts he undertook to meet the 

discovery deadline previously set by the court in this action, what additional discovery he seeks

and why, or how much additional time he needs to conduct necessary discovery in this action. 

Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery.

Plaintiff has also filed a motion to compel defendant Ringler’s attendance at a deposition

by video-conference, which the defendant has opposed. Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure governs the procedure by which depositions are taken by oral examination. “A party 

who wants to depose a person by oral questions must give reasonable written notice to every 

other party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1). “The party who notices the deposition must state in the 

notice the method for recording the testimony.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3)(A). The noticing party 

must also bear costs of recording the deposition and the cost of transcription if he intends to use 

the deposition as evidence. Id. In addition, that party must arrange for an officer to conduct the 

deposition (absent a stipulation by all parties otherwise). Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(5)(A). 

In this case, plaintiff has not served proper notice of defendant Ringer’s deposition. 

Moreover, although this court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, “‘the 

expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by 

Congress.’” Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. 

MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976)). The expenditure of public funds for deposition-related 

costs and fees is not authorized by the in forma pauperis statute or any other statute. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff has not indicated how he intends to bear the costs of any deposition. 

Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant Ringer’s deposition.

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:13-cv-01050-MCE-DB Document 45 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery (Doc. No. 32) is 

denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant Ringler’s deposition (Doc. No. 37) is denied.

Dated: October 1, 2015

DAD:9

ahme1050.41d

Case 2:13-cv-01050-MCE-DB Document 45 Filed 10/02/15 Page 3 of 3