IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 2, 2010
EMELITO EXMUNDO, PLAINTIFF,
R. KANE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO CONDUCT DEPOSITION VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE
(ECF NO. 38)
Plaintiff Emelito Exmundo ("Plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants R. Kane and Ross for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, interference with medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and violation of the California Constitution.
On July 20, 2010, Defendants filed a motion requesting leave to conduct Plaintiff's deposition by video conference. (ECF No. 38.) Defendants contend that because Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison, and Defense counsel is located in Sacramento three and a half hours away, Defendants would incur unnecessary travel expenses if required to conduct the deposition in person. (Defs.' Mot. 1:25-2:4.)
Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may grant such a request on motion. Absent a showing of prejudice by Plaintiff, the Court grants Defendants' motion. If Pleasant Valley State Prison does not have the equipment for a video conference readily available, the prison is not required to obtain such equipment. In such situation, Defendants' request to conduct the deposition by remote means is denied.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion requesting to conduct Plaintiff's deposition via video conference is GRANTED as stated herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.