Opinion
No. CIV S-05-1600-LKK-CMK-P.
October 3, 2008
ORDER
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's "Response to Notice of Taking Plaintiff's Deposition" (Doc. 186).
In plaintiff's response, he states he is not refusing to attend his deposition, but that he is unable to afford to travel to Sacramento from Arkansas to do so. He indirectly is asking for an accommodation to allow him to attend his deposition. The court construes this filing as a request for a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Although plaintiff specifically states he is not requesting a protective order because he does not have anything to hide, the court will construe his filing as a request for a protective order. Plaintiff misconstrues the basis of a protective order in this matter. A protective order does not indicate he has anything to hide. Instead, in this instance, it may protect him financially from having to travel at his own expense to Sacramento.
Accordingly, defendants will be required to file a response to plaintiff's filing within 15 days of the date of service of this order. In their response, defendants should discuss the following:
a. Why plaintiff should be required to travel to Sacramento from his residence in Arkansas to attend a deposition;
b. Why defendants did not seek the documents listed in the deposition notice via requests for production of documents;
c. Why plaintiff's deposition cannot be taken pursuant to Rule 30(b)(4); and
d. Why the court should not order the deposition to be taken in the district in which plaintiff resides.
IT IS SO ORDERED.