IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 13, 2008
PATRICK BRADY, PLAINTIFF,
TIMOTHY FISHBACK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Arthur L. Alarcón United States Circuit Judge
Plaintiff Patrick Brady is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Over the course of the last several months, Mr. Brady has experienced difficulty with his attempts to take non-party depositions by written questions pursuant to Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure due to, among other reasons, certain filings he has attempted to effectuate being "screened out" by the Clerk of the Court. (See e.g., Doc. No. 58). Accordingly, on April 28, 2008, the Court set forth the manner in which plaintiff was to proceed with the depositions by written question, and ordered "[c]counsel for defendants to provide such assistance as is required within and without the prison to effectuate th[e] order." (Doc. No. 62).
On June 25, 2008, the Court issued an order ruling on defendant Fishback's objections to plaintiff's written deposition questions, and ordering 1) plaintiff to provide addresses for the non-party deponents, 2) the Clerk to forward copies of the questions to the non-party deponents and 3) counsel for defendants to provide such assistance as is required within and without the prison to effectuate th[e] order." (Doc. No. 74).
Plaintiff has filed two items he referred to as "Judicial Notice" documents, on May 29, 2008, July 28, 2008 and August 11, 2008 (Doc. Nos. 72, 77 and 79) wherein he appears to be stating that he continues to encounter obstacles with the process of getting his written deposition questions to the appropriate non-party deponents. The Court is aware of only one written response to plaintiff's deposition questions being filed, that of Dr. K. Knight, on August 6, 2008. (Doc. No. 78). It has now come to the Court's attention that the subpoena and written deposition questions sent to Dr. Puljol by plaintiff have been returned to the Clerk as unexecuted by the California State Prison - Corcoran because there is no employee named "Dr. L. Dugol" working at that institution. (Doc. No. 80).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants are directed to advise the Court, to the best of their ability, as to the status of plaintiff's written deposition questions to all non-party deponents no later than August 20, 2008; and,
2. The Clerk is directed to re-serve the subpoena and written deposition questions to the correct non-party deponent: Dr. L. Puljol. (See Doc. No. 80).
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.