Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02216/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02216-17/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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNEST LEE VADEN, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT L. MAYES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-2216 TLN CKD P

ORDER

On February 1, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s January 10, 

2022 order denying as untimely plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to depose non-parties by written 

questions pursuant to Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1

 The court may reconsider 

a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, 

Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is 

appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed 

/////

1

 In the February 1, 2022 motion, plaintiff also seeks reconsideration of the court’s January 13, 

2022 denial of plaintiff’s motion to serve additional interrogatories upon defendant Mayes. In an 

order issued February 8, 2022, the court did grant plaintiff leave to serve additional 

interrogatories upon defendant Mayes. Furthermore, plaintiff no longer seeks reconsideration of 

the January 13, 2022 order in his reply brief concerning the pending motion for reconsideration. 

Accordingly, the court considers the motion for reconsideration as to the January 13, 2022 order 

withdrawn. 

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 98 Filed 04/14/22 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

27

28 2

clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in 

controlling law.” Id. at 1263.

The court has reviewed all relevant parts of the record and has determined that the court’s 

January 10, 2022 denial of plaintiff’s January 3, 2022 motion seeking leave to depose non-parties 

by written questions pursuant to Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as untimely is 

correct. The court also notes that in his January 3, 2022 motion, plaintiff sought to conduct 

depositions by written questions as to three witnesses. Plaintiff has just been given leave to 

conduct video depositions with respect to those same three witnesses. ECF No. 97. 

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s February 1, 2022 motion 

for reconsideration is denied.

Dated: April 14, 2022

1

vade2216.ex2

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 98 Filed 04/14/22 Page 2 of 2