IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 13, 2009
NYLES LAWAYNE WATSON, PLAINTIFF,
D.K. SISTO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have very recently noticed two motions to dismiss for hearing on August 6, 2007.*fn1 On July 7, 2009, defendants Sisto, Rohrer, Noriega, Tan, and Traquina filed a motion for leave to depose plaintiff at California State Prison-Solano on August 7, 2009 at 10:00 a.m., also noticing that motion for hearing on August 6, 2007. Defendants append a copy of the notice of the deposition. Exhibit A to Motion. Defendants also state that although plaintiff's counsel has informed them that he is available for a deposition on that date that he will not produce his client for deposition without a court order. No further order, however, is necessary because the court previously, prior to plaintiff's counsel's appointment, issued a Discovery Order, on April 10, 2008 (docket # 14), which permits defendants to depose plaintiff, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a), or any other incarcerated witness, so long as defendants serve all parties with the requisite notice, under Fed. R. Civ. 30(b)(1), which the court has stated as at least fourteen days before the deposition. The undersigned, therefore, will vacate defendants' motion; the parties are to abide by the deposition notice procedure as set forth in the Discovery Order. So long as defendants serve, or have served, the notice of deposition in accordance with the Discovery Order, there should be no impediment to proceeding with plaintiff's deposition.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' July 7, 2009 (docket # 72) motion for leave to take plaintiff's deposition is vacated from the court's calendar as unnecessary; and
2. So long as plaintiff's deposition is noticed in accordance with the court's previously filed Discovery Order (docket # 14), it should proceed with no further order from this court.