From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hewing v. Sloan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Sep 7, 2011
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01626-DME-MJW (D. Colo. Sep. 7, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 10-cv-01626-DME-MJW

09-07-2011

THEODORE HEWING, Plaintiff(s), v. BRIGHAM SLOAN, Warden GARY PHILLIPS, Correctional Officer, and GRETTA RAFFERTY, Correctional Officer,Defendant(s).


MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion to Allow Depositions of Defendants Brigham Sloan, Gary Phillips, and Gretta Rafferty (Docket No. 69) is denied.

As correctly noted by the defendants in their Response (Docket No. 73), with limited exceptions not applicable here, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1), plaintiff may depose any person, including a party, without leave of court. Therefore, plaintiff's motion to allow depositions of the defendants is unnecessary. The court reminds plaintiff, however, that he must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning the procedures for depositions, including those noted by defendants in their Response (i.e., reasonable notice including the time and place of the deposition, notice of the method for recording the testimony, requirement that plaintiff bear the recording costs of depositions he notices, and the requirement that the deposition be conducted before an officer appointed or designated under Rule 28).


Summaries of

Hewing v. Sloan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Sep 7, 2011
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01626-DME-MJW (D. Colo. Sep. 7, 2011)
Case details for

Hewing v. Sloan

Case Details

Full title:THEODORE HEWING, Plaintiff(s), v. BRIGHAM SLOAN, Warden GARY PHILLIPS…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Sep 7, 2011

Citations

Civil Action No. 10-cv-01626-DME-MJW (D. Colo. Sep. 7, 2011)