1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD EDWARD CAUDLE, Case No.: 20cv98-JLS-LL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 13 v. EX PARTE APPLICATION TO TAKE DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF 14 CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF RONALD EDWARD CAUDLE, AN CORRECTIONS AND 15 INCARCERATED PERSON REHABILITATION, et al.,

16 Defendants. [ECF No. 19] 17

18 On February 22, 2021, Defendants filed an ex parte application asking the Court for 19 permission to take the deposition of Plaintiff Ronald Edward Caudle (AB6670), a person 20 confined in state prison. ECF No. 19. In support, Defendants state that the request is made 21 in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(B) and 30(b)(4) and “[t]he 22 record does not reflect any factors that argue against allowing Plaintiff's deposition.” Id. at 23 1. 24 For good cause shown, Defendants’ ex parte application is GRANTED. Upon 25 reasonable notice to Plaintiff, Defendants may depose Plaintiff in accordance with the 26 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the prison’s rules and regulations, including the 27 presence of correctional officers during the deposition, and may take the deposition by 28 1 remote means if they chose. The court reporter may also be remote provided that pursuant 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28, “a deposition will be deemed to have been conducted 3 || ‘before’ an officer so long as that officer attends the deposition via the same remote means 4 |\(e.g., telephone conference call or video conference) used to connect all other remote 5 || participants, and so long as all participants (including the officer) can clearly hear and be 6 || heard by all other participants.” See Grano v. Sodexo Mgmt.,

, 415 (S.D. 7 || Cal. 2020) (quoting Sinceno v. Riverside Church in the City of N.Y., No. 18-cv-2156 8 ||(LJL),

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2020)). 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 || Dated: February 24, 2021 NO 12 Ce | 13 Honorable Linda Lopez 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28