Henzel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 IN RE J&J INVESTMENT Case No. 2:22-cv-00529-GMN-NJK 10 LITIGATION Order 11 [Docket No. 140] 12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant Wells Fargo’s motion to take the deposition of 14 Matthew Beasley. Docket No. 140. Plaintiffs join in the motion and also seek to depose Beasley. 15 Docket No. 142. No opposition has been filed.1 The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. 16 See Local Rule 78-1. 17 “A party must obtain leave of court, and the court must grant leave to the extent consistent 18 with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2) . . . if the deponent is confined in prison.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2), (B). 19 The parties seek to depose Beasley, who is a pretrial detainee in federal custody. See 20 United States v. Beasley, No. 2:23-cr-00066-JAD-DJA, Docket No. 22 (D. Nev. Apr. 24, 2023).2 21 The motion explains the relevance of Beasley’s testimony to the issues in this case, as well as the 22 23 1 Beasley and his counsel representing him in the criminal proceedings were provided notice of the motion, see Docket No. 140 at 8, but did not file a response. 24 2 It is not clear that a pretrial detainee is “confined in prison” for purposes of Rule 25 30(a)(2)(B). See Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 107 n.2 (2010) (explaining that the word “prison” refers to a “state or federal facility of confinement for convicted criminals,” as opposed 26 to those housed at a local detention center while they await trial (emphasis added)); see also Gordon v. Knox, 2020 WL 13840868, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Fla. May 11, 2020) (citing Blackwell v. 27 Houser, 2017 WL 392184, at *2 n.1 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 2017)). Either way, however, the parties are entitled to Beasley’s deposition, so the Court need not resolve the issue. Cf. Sorenson v. Minn., 28 2022 WL 4533799, at *1-2 (D. Minn. Sept. 28, 2022). 1} proportional nature of the discovery being sought. See Docket No. 140 at 5. Moreover, the record does not demonstrate that the concerns identified in Rule 26(b)(2) warrant denial of leave to depose 3] Beasley. 4 Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. The parties must confer with the federal detention 5| officials regarding the procedures for the deposition. Cf Griffin v. Johnson, 2016 WL 4764670, 6] at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2016). 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: July 9, 2024 Nancy < x 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28