Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00653/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00653-7/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX LAMOTA MARTI,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. A. BAIRES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00653-AWI-SKO PC

ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO DEPOSE NONPARTY BY WRITTEN

QUESTIONS AND FOR ISSUANCE OF

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE; (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF A

THIRTY-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO

MAKE REQUISITE SHOWING REGARDING

DEPOSITION BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS

AND/OR TO SERVE DISCOVERY REQUEST

ON DEFENDANTS; AND (3) EXTENDING

PRETRIAL DISPOSITIVE MOTION

DEADLINE TO MARCH 5, 2012

(Doc. 29)

Order on Plaintiff’s Discovery Motion

I. Summary

Plaintiff Alex Lamota Marti, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 9, 2008. This action is proceeding on

Plaintiff’s amended complaint against Defendants Baires, Garza, and Knight for retaliation, in

violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. On March 17, 2011, Plaintiff

filed a motion seeking leave to conduct the deposition of a nonpartywitness bywritten questions and

for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. Defendants did not file a response.

II. Deposition by Written Questions

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

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

1

Case 1:08-cv-00653-AWI-SKO Document 45 Filed 10/11/11 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

questions to the deponents and awaiting their written responses. The Court will direct the Clerk’s

Office to send Plaintiff a copy of Rule 31. If, after reviewing the rule, Plaintiff believes he is able

to depose Correctional Officer R. F. Couch in compliance with the rule, Plaintiff shall notify the

Court within thirty days and make a showing, under penalty of perjury, that he is able and willing

to retain and compensate an officer to take responses and prepare the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(b). 

At that juncture, the Court will determine what course of action is needed to facilitate the deposition.

III. Subpoenas Duces Tecum

Subject to certain requirements, Plaintiff is entitled to the issuance of a subpoena

commanding the production of documents or tangible things from a nonparty, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, and

to service of the subpoena by the United States Marshal, 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). However, the Court

will consider granting such a request only if the documents or tangible things sought from the

nonparty are not equally available to Plaintiff and are not obtainable from Defendants through a

request for the production of documents or tangible things. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. If Defendants object

to Plaintiff’s discovery request, a motion to compel is the next required step. If the Court rules that

the documents or tangible things are discoverable but Defendants do not have care, custody, and

control of them, Plaintiff may then seek a subpoena. Alternatively, if the Court rules that the

documents are not discoverable, the inquiry ends. 

The Court will grant Plaintiff thirty days within which to serve Defendants with a request for

the production of documents and/or tangible things, limited to the documents and/or things sought

from Correctional Officer R. D. Couch. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s First Amendment

retaliation claims and Plaintiff is reminded that he is limited to seeking documents and/or things

which are relevant to his legal claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

IV. Discovery and Pretrial Dispositive Motion Deadlines

The deadline for the completion of all discovery was September 24, 2011, and the deadline

for filing pretrial dispositive motions is December 5, 2011. In light of the resolution of Plaintiff’s

discovery motion as set forth herein and in the separate but concurrently issued order addressing

Plaintiff’s motions to compel, Plaintiff has been granted limited additional time to complete 

///

2

Case 1:08-cv-00653-AWI-SKO Document 45 Filed 10/11/11 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

discovery on the issues subject to the orders. As a result, it is necessary to extend the pretrial

dispositive motion deadline to March 5, 2012, to allow for the completion of all discovery. 

V. Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a copy of Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to depose a nonpartywitness bywritten questions and for

the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum, filed on March 17, 2011, is DENIED,

without prejudice; 

3. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order within which to

(1) make the requisite showing regarding his ability to depose Correctional Officer

R. D. Couch by written questions and/or (2) serve Defendants with a request for the

production of documents and/or tangible things; and

4. In light of the rulings on Plaintiff’s discoverymotions, the deadline for filing pretrial

dispositive motions is extended from December 5, 2011, to March 5, 2012, to allow

for the completion of all discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2011 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:08-cv-00653-AWI-SKO Document 45 Filed 10/11/11 Page 3 of 3