Guillen v. Owens et al

Filing 85

ORDER - 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. (See document for full details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 6/27/11.(LAD)

Download PDF
1 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Karl Louis Guillen, 10 Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 Quincy Owens, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 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, 18 Owens, Crabtree, Renault, Berger and Carrillo. (Doc. 67) On May 5, 2011, Defendants 19 filed a Response, arguing that there are no “exceptional circumstances” as required by this 20 Court. (Doc. 69) Defendants further argued that Plaintiff has not shown the ability to bear 21 the costs of a deposition. (Doc. 69) Following that Response, Plaintiff filed the pending 22 motion to withdraw his request to depose Defendants Owens, Crabtree, Berger, Renault and 23 Carrillo. However, Plaintiff still seeks leave to depose Defendant Ryan. 24 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw the request to depose Defendants 25 Owens, Crabtree, Berger, Renault and Carrillo. As set forth below, the Court will deny 26 Plaintiff’s motion to depose Defendant Ryan. 27 28 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 1 depositions without prior Court permission. Such permission will not be granted except 2 upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.” (Doc. 55) Plaintiff argues that exceptional 3 circumstances exist, “including but not limited to evasive official responses in previous 4 correspondence . . . .” (Doc. 70) Plaintiff does not explain the evasive responses or explain 5 why such responses constitute an exceptional circumstance. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s use of 6 the phrase “including but not limited to . . .” suggests that there might be other 7 circumstances which would warrant deposing Defendant Ryan. They are not, however, 8 listed and therefore not evaluated by the Court. Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion 9 to depose Defendant Ryan. The Court notes that because Ryan is a party to this action, 10 Plaintiff can obtain discovery through other means in accordance with the Federal Rules of 11 Civil Procedure, such as interrogatories. See FED.R.CIV.P. Rule 26, 33. 12 Because Plaintiff has not established exceptional circumstances supporting his 13 motion to depose Defendant Ryan, and Plaintiff may obtain discovery through other means 14 in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court will deny the Motion for 15 Leave to Depose Defendant Ryan. 16 Accordingly, 17 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw Request for Deposition of 18 Defendants Owens, Crabrtree, Berger, Renault and Carrillo, doc. 70, is GRANTED. The 19 Motion for Leave to Conduct Deposition of Defendant Ryan, doc. 67, is DENIED. 20 DATED this 27th day of June, 2011. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?