Opinion
2:23-cv-00703-GMN-NJK
07-09-2024
GEOFF WINKLER, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants.
ORDER [DOCKET NO. 55]
Nancy J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court is Defendant Wells Fargo's motion to take the deposition of Matthew Beasley. Docket No. 55. Plaintiff joins in the motion and also seeks to depose Beasley. Docket No. 57. No opposition has been filed. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1.
Beasley and his counsel representing him in the criminal proceedings were provided notice of the motion, see Docket No. 55 at 8, but did not file a response.
“A party must obtain leave of court, and the court must grant leave to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2) . . . if the deponent is confined in prison.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2), (B).
The parties seek to depose Beasley, who is a pretrial detainee in federal custody. See United States v. Beasley, No. 2:23-cr-00066-JAD-DJA, Docket No. 22 (D. Nev. Apr. 24, 2023).The motion explains the relevance of Beasley's testimony to the issues in this case, as well as the proportional nature of the discovery being sought. See Docket No. 55 at 5. Moreover, the record does not demonstrate that the concerns identified in Rule 26(b)(2) warrant denial of leave to depose Beasley.
It is not clear that a pretrial detainee is “confined in prison” for purposes of Rule 30(a)(2)(B). See Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 107 n.2 (2010) (explaining that the word “prison” refers to a “state or federal facility of confinement for convicted criminals,” as opposed to those housed at a local detention center while they await trial (emphasis added)); see also Gordon v. Knox, 2020 WL 13840868, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Fla. May 11, 2020) (citing Blackwell v. Houser, 2017 WL 392184, at *2 n.1 (W.D. N.C. Jan. 27, 2017)). Either way, however, the parties are entitled to Beasley's deposition, so the Court need not resolve the issue. Cf. Sorenson v. Minn., 2022 WL 4533799, at *1-2 (D. Minn. Sept. 28, 2022).
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. The parties must confer with the federal detention officials regarding the procedures for the deposition. Cf. Griffin v. Johnson, 2016 WL 4764670, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2016).
IT IS SO ORDERED.