Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01503/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01503-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodney Brooks
Plaintiff
Harold Tate
Defendant

Document Text:

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

RODNEY BROOKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAROLD TATE,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01503 AWI-DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO CONDUCT DEPOSITIONS 

OF MATERIAL WITNESSES

(Document 46)

Plaintiff Rodney Brooks (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against 

Defendant Harold Tate for claims of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and deliberate 

indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On March 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Conduct Depositions of Material Witnesses. 

Defendant opposed the motion on April 9, 2013, and Plaintiff filed a reply on April 22, 2013.

LEGAL STANDARD

By definition, “a ‘deposition’ is the examination under oath by ‘oral questions’ of a party or 

deponent.” Paige v. Consumer Programs, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 272, 275 (C.D. Cal. 2008). A party who 

wants to depose a person by oral questions must give written notice to every other party, stating the 

time and place of the deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1). “Where a deponent is not a party to the 

action, he can be compelled to appear at a deposition examination only by issuance of a subpoena” 

Case 1:11-cv-01503-AWI-DLB Document 55 Filed 08/07/13 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

pursuant to Rule 45. Cleveland v. Palmby, 75 F.R.D. 654, 656 (W.D. Okl. 1977). “Unless the 

parties stipulate otherwise, a deposition must be conducted before an officer appointed or designated 

under Rule 28.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(5)(A). 

Here, Plaintiff requests a Court order allowing him to take the depositions of Defendant Tate 

and non-party witnesses Michael Vu and Correctional Officer Price. He requests that the 

depositions occur during his May 17, 2013, deposition by videoconference. Plaintiff states that he is 

incarcerated at California Correctional Institution, where each of the deponents are employed. 

Defendant objects to the request mainly because Plaintiff has not stated how he will pay for 

the deposition costs and non-party witness fees. In reply, Plaintiff argues that his indigent status 

should not prevent him from obtaining material evidence.

Plaintiff is correct that his indigent status should not prevent him from obtaining material 

evidence. However, his in forma pauperis status does not entitle Plaintiff to free services such as 

scheduling, conducting and recording the deposition. If Plaintiff wishes to conduct oral or written 

depositions, he must review Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 28, 30, 31, and 45. If, after reviewing 

the rules, he believes is able to conduct depositions in compliance with the rules, Plaintiff shall 

notify the Court and make a showing that he is able and willing to retain an officer to take responses 

and prepare the record. Plaintiff should note that because Michael Vu and Correctional Officer Price 

are not parties to this action, he will be required to pay attendance and/or mileage fees pursuant to 

Rule 45. 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:11-cv-01503-AWI-DLB Document 55 Filed 08/07/13 Page 2 of 2