TRAVIS WALTERS v. SHANTICIA HAWKINS (2025)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's motion for a 45-day extension of time to complete discovery and for issuance of subpoenas. [DE-40]. Plaintiff, who is an inmate and proceeding pro se, requests subpoenas so that he may “prorate deposition to non parties, and parties to the litigation,” id. at 1; accordingly, the court construes the request as one for leave to take depositions. Defendants did not respond to the motion, and the time to do so has expired. For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Turning first to the request to take depositions, Plaintiff has not indicated how he will pay the costs of the depositions or if he is able to do so, although the inclusion of the word “prorate” in his request suggests that he is not. See id. This alone is reason enough to deny him leave to depose. See Carmona v. Union Cnty. Sheriff's Office, No. 3:21-cv-00366-MR, 2022 WL 4793625, at *3 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 3, 2022) (denying motion because plaintiff did not state he was willing or able to pay expenses related to depositions) (citing United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317 (1976) (“The established rule is that the expenditure of public funds is proper only when authorized by Congress ․ ”); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3) (party noticing a deposition must state in the notice the method for recording testimony, and “[t]he noticing party bears the recording cost”)).

Further, “[t]o the extent the Plaintiff is asking the Court to appoint someone to conduct and record the depositions for him, this is also denied,” as Plaintiff is not permitted to avoid litigation expenses by shifting them to Defendants and/or the court in this manner. Id. (citing Hughes v. Propst, 1:21-cv-164,2022 WL 989460 (W.D.N.C. April 1, 2022) (denying incarcerated plaintiff's request to appoint officer to take depositions by written questions, and to record them with a tape recorder, because Rule 28(a)(1) does not create a duty for the court to find such person or require them to administer a deposition at the government's expense)); see Blackwell v. Houser, No. 5:16-cv-67-FDW, 2017 WL 392184, at *3 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 2017) (denying pro se plaintiff's request to conduct depositions as deposition costs, including fees, the court reporter's services as well as the cost for copies of the transcripts, were not entitled to be paid for by defendants or the court) (citing Nowlin v. Lusk, No. 11CV712S, 2014 WL 298155, at *9 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2014) (“The costs of a deposition (the fees for swearing the oaths for testimony, the costs of recording testimony, and, if by remote means, the costs of setting up the recording) is usually borne by the party taking the deposition, even when that party is proceeding pro se and granted in forma pauperis status.”)).

Plaintiff may use other discovery devices, such as interrogatories, requests for admission, and document requests to obtain discovery from Defendants. See Pickens v. Lewis, No. l:15-cv-275-FDW, 2017 WL 2198342, at *2 (W.D.N.C. May 18, 2017) (ruling that interrogatories and discovery requests were preferable for pro se prisoner plaintiffs, and further finding that plaintiff did not show he could afford to pay the costs of a court reporter or witness fees, which he is required to do despite the fact that he is proceeding in forma pauperis). Furthermore, Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the taking of depositions upon written examination. See Hoglan v. Robinson, No. 7:15-CV-00694, 2018 WL 1570821, at *3 (W.D. Va. Mar. 30, 2018) (noting that the court “denied the motion to compel oral depositions as unduly burdensome in the context of prison administration because plaintiff had the option to pursue written depositions under Rule 31.”), aff'd, 738 F. App'x 805 (4th Cir. 2018); Oliver v. Harrison, No. 5:12-CT-3157-FL, 2014 WL 1379350, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 8, 2014) (strongly urging parties to come to an agreement as to the individual who shall serve as the “officer designated in the notice” for the purposes of Rule 31 to allow pro se incarcerated plaintiff to utilize written deposition).

To that end and considering Plaintiff's assertion that he needs “additional time to respond to any objection from Defendants' interrogatories,” [DE-40] at 2, the court finds good cause to allow the request for additional time to complete discovery. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for additional time to complete discovery and for issuance of subpoenas, [DE-40], is granted in part and denied in part. All discovery shall be completed by no later than April 24, 2025, and all motions, except those relating to the admissibility of evidence at trial, shall be filed by no later than May 9, 2025.

SO ORDERED, this the 20 day of February, 2025.

Robert B. Jones, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge