UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

KRISTINA N. THOMPSON, 

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:18-cv-214

vs.

VILLAGE OF PHILLIPSBURG, OHIO, et al., District Judge Thomas M. Rose

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S ORAL MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING 

DEFENDANT SANDERSON TO APPEAR AT A DEPOSITION ON OCTOBER 2, 2019

______________________________________________________________________________

This civil case came before the Court for a discovery conference on September 30, 2019. 

Attorneys Ken Ignozzi, James Gordon, and Jeremy Kopp participated. Attorney Brad Anderson, 

who represents a plaintiff in a separate federal case against Defendant Justin W. Sanderson, Sr. 

(“Sanderson”), also participated with the Court’s approval. See Brickles v. Vill. of Phillipsburg, 

Ohio, No. 3:18-CV-193, 2019 WL 4564743, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 20, 2019). Sanderson -- who 

is serving a 43-year term of imprisonment after being convicted a number of criminal offenses in 

the Montgomery County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas -- did not participate in the discovery 

conference, either on his own behalf or through counsel, and it is not clear from the docket whether 

he is now proceeding pro se in this matter.1

1 Attorney M. Salman Shah entered his appearance on behalf of Defendant Sanderson on December 

12, 2018. Doc. 15. Subsequently, Attorney Melvin J. Davis entered his appearance in this case on behalf 

of Sanderson, along with Attorney Shah, by filing an answer for Sanderson on January 29, 2019. See doc. 

21. Subsequently, Attorney Davis moved to withdraw as Sanderson’s attorney of record. Docs. 31. No

motion to withdraw was filed on behalf of Attorney Shah, however. See id. Thereafter, the Court granted 

Attorney Davis’s motion to withdraw. Doc. 37. Because Attorney Shah has not moved for and been granted 

leave to withdraw, however, he remains counsel of record for Sanderson in this case. Attorney Shah 

received notice of the discovery conference via the Court’s CMECF filing system, but did not participate.
2

During the conference, counsel for Plaintiff advised the Court that Defendant Sanderson 

was noticed to appear for a deposition on October 2, 2019 at the Lorain Correctional Institution, 

where he is currently incarcerated. Counsel represents that officials at Lorain Correctional 

previously agreed to accommodate the taking of Sanderson’s deposition at the correctional facility. 

However, counsel for Plaintiff more recently received a communication from an official at Lorain 

Correctional that Sanderson refuses to appear for his deposition and, as a result, officials at Lorain 

Correctional are no longer permitting counsel to enter the facility for Sanderson’s deposition on 

October 2, 2019. 

Accordingly, counsel appearing on the call requested that the Court enter an order directing 

Sanderson to appear on October 2, 2019 for a deposition. The Court, assuming that Sanderson’s

deposition was properly noticed, expressed its intent to grant such a request. Upon review of the 

docket, however, it is unclear whether the deposition was properly noticed. 

Under Federal Rule 30, “[a] party may, by oral questions, depose any person, including a 

party, without leave of court except as provided by Rule 30(a)(2).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1). Leave 

of Court is required, however, where the deponent does not stipulate to the deposition and that 

deponent, as here, “is confined in a prison.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(B). The record presently 

before the Court in this case does not reflect any stipulation or a motion requesting leave to take 

Defendant Sanderson’s deposition on October 2, 2019. 

In the absence of a stipulation or an order granting leave under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2), the 

undersigned is not in a position at this time to order Sanderson to appear at a deposition on October 

2, 2019. Certainly, any party may move for leave to take Sanderson’s deposition, and the Court 

anticipates one or more counsel in this case filing such a motion soon. However, because 

Sanderson should be given an opportunity to respond to any such motion, a deposition occurring 
3

on October 2, 2019 does not appear feasible absent a stipulation from Sanderson. As a result, the 

undersigned DENIES counsel’s oral request for an order directing Sanderson to appear for a 

deposition on October 2, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: October 1, 2019 s/ Michael J. Newman

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge