UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 20, 2010
LYNN CHARLES BEYETT, PLAINTIFF,
V. O'BRIEN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER (DOC. 23) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONDUCT DEPOSITION VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE (DOC. 24)
Discovery Cut-off Date: 12/15/2010
Dispositive Motion Deadline: 2/24/2011
Plaintiff Lynn Charles Beyett ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants V. O'Brien and D. Ragan for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the Court are 1) Defendant O'Brien's motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order, filed October 4, 2010, and 2) Defendant O'Brien's motion to conduct Plaintiff's deposition via video conference, filed October 6, 2010.
I. Motion To Modify Discovery And Scheduling Order
Defendant seeks a thirty-day extension of time to the discovery cut-off date and dispositive motion deadline. Defendant's counsel contends that he has numerous pending matters that cannot be postponed and would make it impossible to take Plaintiff's deposition by the discovery cut-off date. Defendant would then require additional time to obtain the deposition transcript prior to filing a dispositive motion.
The Court can modify a scheduling order on showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Good cause appearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order is GRANTED. The discovery cut-off date is December 15, 2010. The dispositive motion deadline is February 24, 2011.
II. Motion To Coduct Deposition Via Video Conference
Defendant moves to conduct Plaintiff's deposition via video conference, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4). Defendant contends that Plaintiff is housed at San Quentin Prison. A video conference deposition would save on unnecessary travel expenses and is in the interest of judicial economy. The Court agrees. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion to conduct Plaintiff's deposition via video conference is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.