Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00226/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00226-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Karl Louis Guillen, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Quincy Owens, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-0226 PHX-JWS (LOA)

ORDER

This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw Request for Depositions Until

Receipt of Discovery. (Doc. 70)

On April 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Depose Defendants Ryan,

Owens, Crabtree, Renault, Berger and Carrillo. (Doc. 67) On May 5, 2011, Defendants

filed a Response, arguing that there are no “exceptional circumstances” as required by this

Court. (Doc. 69) Defendants further argued that Plaintiff has not shown the ability to bear

the costs of a deposition. (Doc. 69) Following that Response, Plaintiff filed the pending

motion to withdraw his request to depose Defendants Owens, Crabtree, Berger, Renault and

Carrillo. However, Plaintiff still seeks leave to depose Defendant Ryan.

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw the request to depose Defendants

Owens, Crabtree, Berger, Renault and Carrillo. As set forth below, the Court will deny

Plaintiff’s motion to depose Defendant Ryan.

In the Scheduling and Discovery Order, the Court advised Plaintiff that due to “the

logistical problems involved, self-represented incarcerated parties may not take oral

Case 2:10-cv-00226-JWS Document 85 Filed 06/27/11 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 -

depositions without prior Court permission. Such permission will not be granted except

upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.” (Doc. 55) Plaintiff argues that exceptional

circumstances exist, “including but not limited to evasive official responses in previous

correspondence . . . .” (Doc. 70) Plaintiff does not explain the evasive responses or explain

why such responses constitute an exceptional circumstance. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s use of

the phrase “including but not limited to . . .” suggests that there might be other

circumstances which would warrant deposing Defendant Ryan. They are not, however,

listed and therefore not evaluated by the Court. Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion

to depose Defendant Ryan. The Court notes that because Ryan is a party to this action,

Plaintiff can obtain discovery through other means in accordance with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, such as interrogatories. See FED.R.CIV.P. Rule 26, 33.

Because Plaintiff has not established exceptional circumstances supporting his

motion to depose Defendant Ryan, and Plaintiff may obtain discovery through other means

in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court will deny the Motion for

Leave to Depose Defendant Ryan.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw Request for Deposition of

Defendants Owens, Crabrtree, Berger, Renault and Carrillo, doc. 70, is GRANTED. The

Motion for Leave to Conduct Deposition of Defendant Ryan, doc. 67, is DENIED. 

DATED this 27th day of June, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00226-JWS Document 85 Filed 06/27/11 Page 2 of 2