(PC) Riley v. Kernan
This text of (PC) Riley v. Kernan ((PC) Riley v. Kernan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN E. RILEY, Case No.: 16cv405-MMA-LL
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 13 v. APPLICATION TO TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF STEVEN E. RILEY 14 S KERNAN, et al., (C60512), AN INCARCERATED 15 Defendants. PERSON
16 [ECF No. 69] 17 18 On September 2, 2020, Defendants filed an ex parte application asking the Court for 19 permission to take the deposition of Plaintiff Steven E. Riley, a person confined in state 20 prison, and to take the deposition by remote means, including the court reporter, if they 21 choose. ECF No. 69. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. See Docket. Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure 30(a)(2)(B) requires that a party seeking to take a deposition must “obtain leave 23 of court . . . if the deponent is confined in prison.” For good cause shown, Defendants’ ex 24 parte application is GRANTED. Upon reasonable notice to Plaintiff, Defendants may 25 depose Plaintiff in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the prison’s 26 rules and regulations, including the presence of correctional officers during the deposition, 27 and may take the deposition by remote means if they choose. The court reporter may also 28 be remote provided that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28, “a deposition will 1 || be deemed to have been conducted ‘before’ an officer so long as that officer attends the 2 || deposition via the same remote means (e.g., telephone conference call or video conference) 3 to connect all other remote participants, and so long as all participants (including the 4 |\officer) can clearly hear and be heard by all other participants.” See Grano v. Sodexo 5 ||Mgmt., Inc., No. 18cv1818-GPC(BLM), 2020 WL 1975057, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 6 || 2020) (quoting Sinceno vy. Riverside Church in City of New York, No. 18-cv-2156 (LJL), 7 2020 WL 1302053, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2020)). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: September 8, 2020 XO 10 DEF 11 Honorable Linda Lopez 1D United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
(PC) Riley v. Kernan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-riley-v-kernan-casd-2020.