Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02074/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02074-20/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

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

Plaintiff Kevin D. Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendants Waddle and 

Castellanos for retaliation in violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. 

On September 8, 2015, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order wherein the 

deadline for conducting discovery was set for February 1, 2016. On January 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a 

motion to extend the discovery deadline to conduct depositions. On March 29, 2016, the Court denied 

the motion to modify the discovery deadline for lack of good cause. On April 21, 2016, Plaintiff 

requested reconsideration of the Court’s order. Plaintiff stated he is in fact able to pay for the costs 

associated with obtaining an officer to conduct a deposition. The Court granted reconsideration in part 

on June 3, 2016, and granted Plaintiff thirty days to submit an offer of proof showing he has retained 

an officer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 30. 

KEVIN D. BRYANT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

R. ROMERO, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-02074 DAD DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY DEADLINE

[ECF No. 114]

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

ORDER COMPELLING DISCLOSURE OF FULL 

NAMES AND ADDRESSES

[ECF No. 116]

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 125 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 3
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

On June 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for ninety day extension of time to conduct 

depositions. Defendants filed an opposition on July 15, 2016, and Plaintiff filed replies/supplements

on July 21, 2016, and July 28, 2016.

Plaintiff states that his friend has contacted KC’s Court Reporting and retained that company to 

conduct depositions. Plaintiff states he verified this with their office manager, Carol Lancaster. 

Defendants oppose the motion alleging Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause. Defendants 

submit that Plaintiff’s offer of proof is deficient. Defendants argue that simply providing a statement 

that a friend has contacted the court reporting service and submitted credit card information does not 

demonstrate that the friend is willing and able to pay the substantial amount of money that will be 

necessary to conduct his proposed depositions, or that the friend has the funds to do so. Defendants 

are correct that this offer of proof is insufficient. However, Plaintiff has responded to Defendants’ 

opposition by attaching a copy of a letter from KC’s Court Reporting which shows that Plaintiff has in 

fact reserved the court reporting services for his depositions. The letter does not show that Plaintiff 

has paid for those services, and notably, the letter reveals that a retainer has not yet been charged for 

those services. Nevertheless, the Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted sufficient proof to move 

forward with his proposed deposition(s). Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiff an extension of time 

of the discovery deadline to conduct his depositions. However, if it is revealed that Plaintiff is not in 

fact able to retain said officer and depose his witnesses in accordance with Rule 30, the extension of 

time will be vacated. 

On July 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order compelling Defendants and their 

attorney to disclose the full names and addresses of inmates and CDCR officials he wishes to depose. 

Plaintiff states he needs this information in order to conduct his depositions. Defendants oppose the 

motion stating the information is unnecessary. Defendants state the proposed deponents may be 

properly served by serving the notices through the Litigation Coordinator. Defendants’ argument is 

persuasive. Plaintiff possesses the names, titles, and locations of the CDCR witnesses he wishes to 

depose, and he possesses the names and inmate numbers of the inmates he wishes to depose. The 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 125 Filed 07/29/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Court finds no reason to also provide address information insofar as the proposed deponents can be 

served via the Litigation Coordinator.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff motion for an extension of time of ninety (90) days to conduct depositions is 

GRANTED; and

2) Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling Defendants to disclose addresses of inmates and 

CDCR officials is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 125 Filed 07/29/16 Page 3 of 3