Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01332/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01332-15/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

JASON LATRELL THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. SHEPPARD-BROOKS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01332-LJO-SKO PC

ORDER RE MOTIONS

(Docs. 65, 78, 79, 83)

Plaintiff Jason Latrell Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court are motions

related to discovery. 

I. Discussion

A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Open Discovery

On October 30, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court to issue an order opening

discovery. (Doc. #65.) The Court issued a discovery order on December 10, 2009. (Doc. #69.) 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied as moot.

B. Motions Concerning Depositions

On June 3, 2010, Defendants filed a motion requesting leave to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition

via a video conference. (Doc. #78.) Plaintiff has not opposed the request and filed a motion on July

27, 2010 requesting the Court “to schedule the deposition of Sergeant R. Salinas and prisoner Stacey

Sharehorne via vedio[sic] conference.” (Doc. #83.)

///

1

Case 1:06-cv-01332-JLT Document 86 Filed 08/09/10 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

The Court will grant both parties leave to conduct depositions via a video conference. 

However, Plaintiff is advised that the Court is generallynot involved with scheduling and conducting

depositions. Discovery is generally a self-executing process. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to

schedule the deposition, provide proper notice to the deponent, and to bear the costs associated with

the deposition. Plaintiff must bear the cost of recording the deposition, as required by Rule

30(b)(3)(A), and must also bear the cost of transcription if he intends to use the deposition as

evidence in a court proceeding. Further, Plaintiff must arrange for an officer to conduct the

deposition as required by Rule 30(b)(5). 

Additionally, Plaintiff has identified a non-party correctional officer as a potential deponent. 

Plaintiff is required to pay witness fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1821 to depose a non-party. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion will be granted to the extent that he is requesting permission to conduct

a deposition via a video conference. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied to the extent that he is asking

the Court to schedule any depositions on Plaintiff’s behalf.

The Court notes that the deadline for conducting discoveryis August 10, 2010. To the extent

that the parties need an extension of time to conduct depositions due to the delay caused by the Court

in granting their motion to conduct a deposition via a video conference, the parties are advised to file

a request for an extension of time that demonstrates that they intend, and are able, to conduct a

deposition in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

C. Defendants’ Motion to Vacate the Scheduling Order

On June 14, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to vacate the scheduling order. (Doc. #79.) 

Defendants argue that good cause exists to vacate the scheduling order because Plaintiff has been

in acute psychiatric care since April 2010, and Defendants have not yet propounded any written

discovery on Plaintiff or taken his deposition. However, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’

motion indicating that, while he has indeed been transferred to the Department of Mental Health

because of depression, he is able to participate in discovery.

It appears that Defendants assumed, prematurely, that Plaintiff would be unable to participate

in discovery as Defendants have not attempted to conduct discovery and Plaintiff has indicated that

he would have been able to participate in discovery. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants

2

Case 1:06-cv-01332-JLT Document 86 Filed 08/09/10 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

have not demonstrated good cause to vacate the discovery scheduling order.

II. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 30, 2009 motion to open discovery is DENIED as moot;

2. Defendants’ June 3, 2010 motion for leave to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition via a

video conference is GRANTED;

3. Defendants’ June 14, 2010 motion to vacate the scheduling order is DENIED;

4. Plaintiff’s July 27, 2010 motion is GRANTED to the extent that he is requesting

permission to conduct a deposition via video conference; and

5. Plaintiff’s July 27, 2010 motion is DENIED to the extent that he is requesting the

Court to schedule the` depositions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:06-cv-01332-JLT Document 86 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 3