Parker v. Stubbs

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 DIONDRAE PARKER, Case No. 3:24-CV-00129-MMD-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART MOTION 6 v. FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS

7 BRANDON STUBBS, et al., [ECF Nos. 27, 28, 29]

8 Defendants.

9 10 Before the Court are three motions filed by Plaintiff Diondrae Parker (“Parker”) 11 requesting leave of court to take oral depositions. (ECF Nos. 27, 28, 29.) Parker’s first 12 motion asks the Court to order Defendants Francisco Barrios, Adam Main, William Miller, 13 and Brandon Stubbs appear at Northern Nevada Correctional Center (“NNCC”) to be 14 deposed in a private room outfitted with a recording device. (ECF No. 27.) Parker also 15 asks the Court to order the same for former correctional officer “Hary” — whom Parker 16 identifies as a material witness. (Id.) With regard to Hary and Stubbs, Parker further asks 17 that the Court issue subpoenas to secure their appearance since they are no longer prison 18 employees. (Id.) Parker’s second motion repeats his request that the Court issue a 19 subpoena for Hary, (ECF No. 28), and his third motion repeats his request that the Court 20 issue a subpoena for Stubbs, (ECF No. 29). For the reasons discussed below, Parker’s 21 motion for leave of court is denied, and his motions for the issuance of subpoenas are 22 granted in part and denied in part. 23 To start, it appears Parker’s motions misunderstand the procedure for taking oral 24 depositions. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30, a party only needs leave of court 25 to take oral depositions in certain circumstances. One such circumstance, and where the 26 misunderstanding may stem from, is “if the deponent is confined in prison.” Fed. R. Civ. 27 P. 30(a)(2)(B) (emphasis added). In other words, when the person being deposed is confined in prison — i.e., if Parker were the one being deposed — the party seeking to 1 | depose that person must obtain leave of court. Here, although Parker is confined in prison, the witnesses he wants to depose are not, and so he need not obtain leave of 3 | court to pursue the depositions. 4 To the extent that Parker's motions request the Court order NNCC to provide a 5 private room outfitted with recording equipment and issue subpoenas, these requests are 6 improper. It appears Parker believes that because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, 7 (ECF No. 14), it is the Court's responsibility to issue, serve, and pay the witness fees for 3 the subpoenas, as well as any other costs associated with the depositions. However, in 9 forma pauperis status does not extend to the issuance of subpoenas, the service of

40 subpoenas, or making arrangements for the taking of a deposition at government expense. The Court will order the Clerk to issue blank subpoenas to Parker, but Parker " is responsible for making all arrangements for service of these subpoenas, the expense of service, the witness fee, and any other costs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1); Tedder v. "8 Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (explaining that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 4 does not entitle a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis to a waiver of witness fees for 1 subpoenas). Furthermore, Parker is responsible for coordinating with NNCC for the taking 16 of the depositions. 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Parker's motion for leave of court to take oral 18 | depositions, (ECF No. 27), is DENIED. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Parker’s motions for the issuance of subpoenas, 20 (ECF Nos. 28, 29), are DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART as stated above. The 21 Clerk shall ISSUE five blank subpoenas and forward the same to Parker. 22 DATED: September 25, 2025. □ 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28