Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06338/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06338-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRI BROTHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

TEHACHAPI PRISON MEDICAL

PROVIDER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-03-6338 REC SMS P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

DEPOSE DEFENDANT BAUGHMAN AS

UNNECESSARY

(Doc. 67)

Plaintiff Henri Brother (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 11, 2005, plaintiff filed

a motion seeking leave of court to depose defendant Baughman. 

Plaintiff need not obtain permission from the court to depose defendant Baughman.

Depositions must be noticed and conducted in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30.

In order to conduct a deposition, plaintiff must, in part, arrange for the deposition testimony to be

recorded and arrange for the deposition to be conducted before an officer authorized to administer

an oath. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 30(b). 

Given that plaintiff is incarcerated, he may need the court’s assistance in gaining the

cooperation of prison officials and he may need to court to issue a subpoena duces tecum on his

behalf. However, because conducting a deposition will require that plaintiff pay certain costs for the

recording and the officer, the court will not intervene until such time as plaintiff demonstrates that

he understands the requirements for deposing a witness and is capable of securing the funds to pay

Case 1:03-cv-06338-AWI -SMS Document 73 Filed 05/16/05 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

the costs that are incurred in deposing a witness. If plaintiff makes that showing, the court will

schedule a telephonic hearing with plaintiff and defendants’ counsel to discuss the logistics of

deposing defendant Baughman.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for leave to depose defendant Baughman, filed

April 11, 2005, is DENIED as unnecessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06338-AWI -SMS Document 73 Filed 05/16/05 Page 2 of 2