December 30, 2013
RAYMOND MANZANILLO, Plaintiff,
JOHN MOULTON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 27, 28
JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.
Plaintiff, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison ("PBSP') proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against prison officials. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that John Moulton ("Moulton"), a staff psychologist at PBSP, "arbitrarily" diagnosed plaintiff with a mental health condition, which led to plaintiff's forced placement in the Psychiatric Services Unit ("PSU") for 35 days. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant J. Frisk ("Frisk") forcibly moved plaintiff to the PSU through the use of a chemical agent. Plaintiff has filed: (1) a second motion for leave to take depositions by written questions; and (2) a motion to compel discovery responses.
1. Motion for Leave to Take Depositions by Written Questions
Plaintiff seeks to depose two non-parties, Dr. Regina Rushe and Dr. E. St. Germain, by way of written questions (Dkt. 28.) Plaintiff asserts that doctors Rushe and Germaine were direct supervisors of Moulton and signed off on Moulton's findings designating plaintiff as an "at risk" inmate.
If plaintiff wants to conduct depositions on written questions, he needs to set up the depositions, arrange for a court reporter and pay the costs associated with the depositions. It is not defendants' obligation or the Court's obligation to do so.
The Court earlier allowed a modified procedure for depositions by written questions against non-parties Dr. Innena Ikegbu and Dr. Christina Rich in this action. (Dkt. 23.) Plaintiff asserted that doctors Ikegbu and Rich personally evaluated plaintiff at PBSP and determined that he did not need to be in the PSU. In that instance, the Court agreed to forward questions to the deponents, to be answered in writing, with the deponents verifying their written answers. Plaintiff is reminded that such a procedure is not customary, and he has not shown good cause for a modified procedure in this instance. Accordingly, plaintiff must comply with Rules 31 and 45 to take written depositions
2. Motion to Compel
Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel the production of documents and answers to interrogatories. (Dkt. 27.) The motion is signed November 17, 2013. Defendants have submitted meet and confer letter indicating that the parties agreed to extend the deadline for defendants' discovery responses to December 16, 2013. (Dkt. 33-1 Ex. A.) It therefore appears that the motion to compel is premature. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice to re-filing once plaintiff has reviewed defendants' discovery responses, or they have failed to provide any.
This order terminates Docket Nos. 27 and 28.
IT IS SO ORDERED.