French v. Mitchell
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff filed a request to depose a witness, Tom Blake, but failed to specify whether she intended to use Rule 30 (oral examination) or Rule 31 (written questions). The court ordered Plaintiff to file a supplemental brief by May 4, 2023, clarifying the applicable rule and demonstrating the ability to comply with the associated procedural and cost requirements.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff is ordered to file a Supplemental Brief in Support of her Request for Deposition by May 4, 2023.“Thus, Plaintiff must file a Supplemental Brief in Support of her Request for Deposition by May 4, 2023.” | agree with court The order correctly identifies that the initial filing was ambiguous regarding the procedural mechanism (Rule 30 vs. Rule 31) and that both rules require specific showings for depositions involving prisoners. Requiring clarification and a showing of ability to pay/comply is a standard procedural management step. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the ambiguity in the plaintiff's request and cites the relevant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It appropriately imposes a deadline for clarification and cites district court authority to define the specific requirements for prisoner depositions under both rules. There are no significant gaps or legal errors.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRISTOPHER G. FRENCH, Case No.: 3:22-cv-01355-MMA-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. REQUEST FOR DEPOSITION 14 J. MITCHELL, [ECF No. 18] 15 Defendant. 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Request to Interview Witness Under Oath. ECF 18 No. 18. Here, Plaintiff requests to depose a witness, Tom Blake. Id. 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 governs depositions by oral examination, and 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31 governs depositions by written questions. Both rules 21 require that a party seeking to take a deposition must “obtain leave of the court . . . if the 22 deponent is confined in prison.” FED. R. CIV. P. 30(a)(2)(B); FED. R. CIV. P. 31(a)(2)(B). 23 From Plaintiff’s filing, it is unclear whether she is seeking to depose Ms. Blake pursuant 24 to Rule 30 or Rule 31. 25 Thus, Plaintiff must file a Supplemental Brief in Support of her Request for 26 Deposition by May 4, 2023. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief must clarify which Federal 27 Rule she seeks to use in her deposition of Ms. Blake and also must “specifically show the 28 ability to comply with the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Ramos v. Mayfield, 1 || No. 21cv1036-ADA-EPG-PC, 2023 WL 414535 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2023) (regarding Rule 2 ||30 deposition, requiring that the prisoner seeking to employ this procedure provide “‘the 3 ||name of the person to be deposed, the name and address of the court reporter who will take 4 ||the deposition, the estimated cost for the court reporter’s time and the recording, and the 5 ||source of funds for payment of that cost. Plaintiff bears the responsibility to pay the costs 6 || of the deposition, including the cost of copies of deposition transcripts.”); Lopez v. Horel, 7 || No. C-06-4772-SI-pr, 2007 WL 2177460, at *2 n.2 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2007) (describing 8 31 deposition procedure, and noting that a prisoner seeking to employ this procedure 9 ||“‘thus has to pay the witness fee, deposition officer fee, court reporter fee, and the cost of a 10 || transcript of the proceedings”). 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ||Dated: April 13, 2023 AWiaev H. Xovolale 14 Honorable Allison i. Goddard United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28