Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00453/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00453-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS )

KENNETH PEYTON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 

)

JEFFREY BURDICK, etc. et al, )

)

Defendants. )

 )

Case No. 1:07-cv-00453 LJO TAG 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

EX-PARTE MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF OFFICER FOR

DEPOSITIONS BY WRITTEN 

EXAMINATION 

(Doc. 36)

On July 25, 2007, incarcerated plaintiff Aurelius Augustinus Kenneth Peyton (“Plaintiff”)

filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Appointment of Officer for Depositions by Written Examination. 

(Doc. 36). The motion requests the Court to appoint a qualified officer to serve as a deposition

officer pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 28 (a). Plaintiff contends that he needs to “take the testimony of

several persons, of at least one public or private corporation, partnership, or association, and of at

least one governmental agency, by deposition upon written examination.” (Doc. 36, p. 2). Plaintiff 

declares that because he is incarcerated and indigent, he “is unable to independently provide for or

stipulate for the provisions of a qualified deposition officer ). (Id. at p. 5). 

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s ex-parte motion. Plaintiff’s motion states that he wants

to take “deposition(s) upon written examination.” Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint a qualified

deposition officer, e.g., a court reporter, and implicitly, to pay for the court reporter’s services.

Plaintiff fails to indicate who he wishes to depose, when he wishes to depose them, or how many

examinations he intends to conduct. 

///

///

Case 1:07-cv-00453-LJO-JLT Document 37 Filed 07/26/07 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

Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the procedure for depositions upon

written notice. Rule 31 (a)(1)(2) states: 

(a) Serving Questions: Notice.

(1) A party may take the testimony of any person, including a party, by

deposition upon written questions without leave of court except as provided in

paragraph (2). The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by the use of

subpoena as provided in Rule 45.

(2) A party must obtain leave of court, which shall be granted to the extent

consistent with the principles stated in Rule 26(b)(2), if the person to be examined is

confined in prison or if, without the written stipulation of the parties. 

 (A) A proposed deposition would result in more than ten depositions 

being taken under this rule or Rule 30 by the plaintiffs, or by the 

defendants, or by third-party defendants;

 (B) the person to be examined has already been deposed in the case; or

 (C) a party seeks to take a deposition before the time specified in Rule

26(d). (Italics added). 

Under Rule 31, a party is allowed to take testimony upon written questions without leave of

court, provided that the person to be examined is not confined in prison and his or her deposition is

not prohibited under Rule 31 (a) (2). Because Plaintiff has failed to indicate who he wishes to

depose, when he wishes to depose them, or how many depositions he intends to conduct, the Court is

unable to determine whether any of the proposed depositions are prohibited under Rule 31 (a) (2) . 

Under these circumstances, an order appointing a deposition officer would be premature and

unwarranted at this time. 

Plaintiff has also failed to show that he has satisfied the discovery meet and confer

requirements set forth in Rule 37-251 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of California. Local Rule 37-251 provides that any motion made pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37 shall not be heard unless the parties have conferred and attempted to

resolve their difference, and the parties have set forth their differences and the bases therefore in a

joint statement re discovery disagreements. Here, Plaintiff has failed to show that he has either

attempted to obtain the opposing parties’ stipulations or complied with Local Rule 27-251. 

Plaintiff’s declaration states that “Being incarcerated and indigent, I am unable to independently 

provide for or stipulate for the provision of a qualified deposition officer.” (Doc. 36, p. 5). 

Plaintiff’s apparent indigence goes to his ability to pay for a court reporter, but it does not explain

///

Case 1:07-cv-00453-LJO-JLT Document 37 Filed 07/26/07 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

why he is unable to enter into a stipulation regarding discovery procedures, including those set forth

in Rule 31 or the selection of a court reporter. (See, Fed.R.Civ.P. 29). 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish that ex parte relief

is warranted, or that the appointment of a deposition officer is necessary or appropriate at this time. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Appointment of Officer for Depositions by Written

Examinations (Doc. 36) is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00453-LJO-JLT Document 37 Filed 07/26/07 Page 3 of 3