(PC) Bradford v. Usher ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, ) Case No.: 1:17-cv-01128-SAB (PC) ) 9 Plaintiff, ) 10 v. ) ) O OR BD JEE CR T O IOV NE SR TR OU L OI RN DG E P RL DA EIN NT YI IF NF G’S HIS MOTION TO COMPEL 11 C. OGBUEHI, et al. ) ) (ECF No. 124) 12 Defendants. ) ) 13 ) 14 Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 15 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 16 On June 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed objections to the Court’s May 20, 2021 order denying his 17 motion to compel. (ECF No. 124.) Plaintiff contends that he should be allowed to appear 18 telephonically at his deposition and the Court should order the return of his legal and personal 19 property. Plaintiff’s objections must be overruled. 20 With regard to Plaintiff’s access to his property, the Court’s May 20, 2021 order specifically 21 stated that Defendants have agreed to provide Plaintiff with copies of all written discovery that has 22 been exchanged to date. (ECF No. 116 at 2.) Further, as Plaintiff was previously advised, “Plaintiff’s 23 vague claim that he does not have access to his legal property, alone, does not relieve him of his obligation 24 to participate in his deposition. Plaintiff fails to set forth what and why access to his legal property is 25 necessary to participate in his deposition. . . . There is no indication in the instant motion that a lack of 26 legal documentation or preparation will prevent Plaintiff from being deposed.” (ECF No. 108 at 3-4.) 27 Moreover, Plaintiff’s deposition has yet to be re-set and there is no request for Plaintiff to produce 28 documents at such deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(2). Plaintiff is further 1 || advised that he is not entitled to free copies from the Court, and the Court will not provide him a free 2 || copy of the entire docket in this case. The Clerk charges $.50 per page for copies of documents. See 2 3 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Copies of up to twenty pages may be made by the Clerk's Office at this court upon 4 || written request and prepayment of the copy fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2250, the Clerk is not required tc 5 || furnish copies without cost to an indigent petitioner except by order of the judge. To request copies o 6 || his Complaint at this juncture, Plaintiff must submit a request in writing to the Clerk, a large self- 7 || addressed envelope affixed with sufficient postage, and prepayment of copy costs to the Clerk. 8 With regard to Plaintiffs request to be deposed by telephone, Rule 30(b)(4) allows deposition 9 || to “be taken by telephone or other remote means.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4). The Court authorizes the 10 || use of remote depositions by videoconference in this action, which will help secure a “just, speedy, 11 || and inexpensive determination.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; ECF No. 66 at § 3); see also Velicer v. Falconheac 12 || Capital LLC, No. C19-1505 JLR, 2020 WL 1847773, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 13, 2020) (finding no 13 || good cause to extend scheduling order deadlines by ninety days and urging the parties to consider 14 || remote depositions); Sinceno v. Riverside Church in City of New York, No. 18-CV-2156 (LJL), □□□□ 15 || WL 1302053, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2020) (authorizing remote depositions “[i]n order to protect 16 || public health while promoting the ‘just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and 17 || proceeding’ ” (citation omitted)). 18 Here, Defendants have indicated that when Plaintiff's deposition is re-set it will conducted by 19 || videoconference. (ECF No. 116 at 2.) While Plaintiff may prefer to be deposed telephonically, the 20 || Court finds no basis to order Defendants to conduct the deposition telephonically, absent a stipulatior 21 |} to do so. 22 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's objections to the Court’s May 20, 2021 order are overrulec 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. A (re 25 lI pated: _ June 3, 2021 OF 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28