(PC) Garces v. Pickett ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUIS MANUEL GARCES, No. 2:17-cv-0319 JAM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. PICKETT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983, has filed a motion for leave to depose defendants by written question. ECF No. 168. 19 With the exception of some limited aspects of discovery addressed in the parties’ motions to 20 compel, discovery in this matter closed on October 23, 2020. ECF No. 115. Plaintiff’s request to 21 depose defendants by written question is therefore untimely, and plaintiff offers no explanation 22 for its untimeliness. Furthermore, even if plaintiff’s had shown cause for his untimely request, he 23 would be responsible for setting up the depositions, including setting the date, time, and location 24 of the depositions, arranging for a court reporter, and paying any fees for the court reporter’s 25 services and the transcription of the depositions, see Matthews v. Puckett, 670 F. App’x 964, 965 26 (9th Cir. 2016) (upholding denial of request for additional copy of deposition transcript because 27 indigent plaintiff “must bear his own discovery costs” (citing Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211 28 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam))), and he has not shown that he is capable of doing so. ] For all these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to depose 2 | defendants by written question, ECF No. 168, is DENIED. 3 | DATED: August 6, 2021 □ 4 ttt0n— ALLISON CLAIRE 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28