Opinion
21-11568
08-26-2022
JOEL CARTER, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN MANDY, et al., Defendants.
Mark A. Goldsmith United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TAKE PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION (ECF No. 21)
Curtis Ivy, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge
Defendants Darnell Mandy and Sebastian Freeman (“Defendants”) seek leave of Court to take Plaintiff's deposition by video conference, or by telephone pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2) which requires a party to obtain leave of court to depose a person who is confined in prison. (ECF No. 21). Defendants also seek an order from the Court to take the deposition remotely pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(7). (Id. at PageID.149). The Court must grant a defendant leave to depose plaintiff to the extent consistent with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) and (2), which permit discovery on any non-privileged, relevant matter. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2). In accordance with the governing rules, Defendant's motion to depose Plaintiff (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants may take Plaintiff's deposition via telephone or video conference pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(4).
Authority to take deposition by phone or other remote means now in Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(4).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Review of this Order is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72.1(d).