(PC) Riley v. Kernan
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
Defendants filed an ex parte application seeking leave to depose the incarcerated plaintiff and to conduct the deposition via remote means. The court granted the application, allowing the deposition to proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and prison regulations, including the use of remote technology for the court reporter and participants.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Defendants' ex parte application to take the deposition of Plaintiff Steven E. Riley and to take the deposition by remote means.“For good cause shown, Defendants’ ex parte application is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(B), which requires leave of court to depose a person confined in prison. The court found 'good cause' shown, which is the appropriate standard for such motions. The allowance of remote depositions is consistent with modern practice and Rule 28, as supported by the cited case law. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the relevant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (30 and 28) and persuasive district court authority to support the allowance of remote depositions for an incarcerated witness. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a routine procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN E. RILEY, Case No.: 16cv405-MMA-LL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 13 v. APPLICATION TO TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF STEVEN E. RILEY 14 S KERNAN, et al., (C60512), AN INCARCERATED 15 Defendants. PERSON 16 [ECF No. 69] 17 18 On September 2, 2020, Defendants filed an ex parte application asking the Court for 19 permission to take the deposition of Plaintiff Steven E. Riley, a person confined in state 20 prison, and to take the deposition by remote means, including the court reporter, if they 21 choose. ECF No. 69. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. See Docket. Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure 30(a)(2)(B) requires that a party seeking to take a deposition must “obtain leave 23 of court . . . if the deponent is confined in prison.” For good cause shown, Defendants’ ex 24 parte application is GRANTED. Upon reasonable notice to Plaintiff, Defendants may 25 depose Plaintiff in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the prison’s 26 rules and regulations, including the presence of correctional officers during the deposition, 27 and may take the deposition by remote means if they choose. The court reporter may also 28 be remote provided that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28, “a deposition will 1 || be deemed to have been conducted ‘before’ an officer so long as that officer attends the 2 || deposition via the same remote means (e.g., telephone conference call or video conference) 3 to connect all other remote participants, and so long as all participants (including the 4 |\officer) can clearly hear and be heard by all other participants.” See Grano v. Sodexo 5 ||Mgmt., Inc., No. 18cv1818-GPC(BLM), 2020 WL 1975057, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 6 || 2020) (quoting Sinceno vy. Riverside Church in City of New York, No. 18-cv-2156 (LJL), 7 2020 WL 1302053, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2020)). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: September 8, 2020 XO 10 DEF 11 Honorable Linda Lopez 1D United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28