Davis v. Woodford et al
Filing
46
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/03/11 granting 42 Motion to take plaintiff's deposition by videoconference. Defendants' request to take the depositions of all other witnesses by videoconference is denied without prejudice. (Plummer, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
CHARLES T. DAVIS,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
vs.
D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
/
15
16
No. CIV S-05-1898 FCD EFB P
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
17
U.S.C. § 1983. On October 21, 2011, defendants submitted a motion to conduct the deposition
18
of plaintiff “and all witnesses” via videoconference, in order to avoid travel expenditures that
19
would be incurred if defense counsel were required to travel to plaintiff’s place of incarceration.
20
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4) (providing that, on motion, the court may order that a deposition be
21
taken by remote means).
22
Good cause appearing, defendants’ request to take plaintiff’s deposition by
23
videoconference will be granted. However, defendants have not shown cause why they should
24
be permitted to depose other, unidentified witnesses by videoconference. Accordingly,
25
defendants’ request to take the deposition of all witnesses by videoconference will be denied
26
without prejudice to its renewal with a showing of cause.
1
1
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
2
1. Defendants’ request to take plaintiff’s deposition by videoconference is granted;
3
2. Defendants’ request to take the depositions of all other witnesses by videoconference
4
5
6
7
8
is denied without prejudice; and
3. Nothing in this order shall be interpreted as requiring any penal institution
to obtain videoconferencing equipment if it is not already available.
So ordered.
DATED: November 3, 2011.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?
