Mitchell v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 RICHARD L. MITCHELL, Case No.: 2:18-cv-00646-RFB-EJY

5 Plaintiff,

6 v. ORDER

7 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s request to take depositions as stated in his Response 11 to Defendant’s motion to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition. See ECF No. 77. The Court has considered 12 Plaintiff’s request and Defendant’s Response. ECF No. 81. 13 The statute addressing in forma pauperis proceedings by a prisoner does not contain any 14 provision for payment by Defendant or the Court of fees or costs associated with discovery. See 28 15 U.S.C. § 1915; Dujardine v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, Case No. 1:01-cv-701, 2009 WL 16 3401172, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 19, 2009). Despite this limitation Plaintiff requests to take eight 17 depositions, seven of which would require issuing subpoenas and service of process. All eight 18 depositions would require the appearance of a court reporter and preparation of a transcript. Plaintiff 19 does not explain how he would pay for service of process, a court reporter or preparation of a 20 transcript. Plaintiff also fails to identify six of the individuals he seeks to depose. 21 Plaintiff has the right and ability to conduct discovery at no cost, other than postage, that 22 should yield him substantial information. Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 412, n.1 (9th Cir. 23 1998). Plaintiff may issue written questions to Defendant through Interrogatories. Plaintiff may 24 also issue Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant. Plaintiff may serve Defendant with 25 Requests for Admissions. Plaintiff is directed to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33, 34, and 36 for 26 an explanation of each of these discovery methods. However, Plaintiff’s request to take depositions 27 of six unknown individuals, seven individuals who must be served, as well as the deposition of 1 Plaintiff may renew a request to take the deposition of Defendant Sergeant Miguel Garcia 2 only if he is able to explain how costs associated with the deposition would be paid and provides a 3 description of the subject matters he seeks to cover in such a deposition. The request to take seven 4 additional depositions is denied with prejudice. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to take depositions 6 appearing in his filing at ECF No. 77 is DENIED without prejudice as to Defendant Sergeant Garcia. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to take seven additional depositions is 8 DENIED with prejudice. 9 DATED this 12th day of April, 2022. 10

11 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27