1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 Daryll Lucas, Case No. 2:23-cv-01688-ART-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 LaCinda Elgan, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Before this Court is Defendant LaCinda Elgan’s motion to take the deposition of Plaintiff 11 Daryll Lucas. ECF No. 71. This motion can be properly resolved without further briefing. 12 Because deposing Plaintiff is consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2), this Court grants Defendant’s 13 motion. 14 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30, a party must obtain the court’s permission to 15 depose a witness in custody. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(B). The court must grant leave to the extent 16 consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) (defining the scope of relevant discovery) and (2) (granting courts 17 discretion to limit discovery in certain circumstances). Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)–(2). “The 18 circumstances addressed in Rule 26(b)(2) are (1) whether the discovery is cumulative or 19 duplicative or is readily obtainable from another more convenient source; (2) whether the party 20 seeking the discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information; and/or (3) whether the 21 discovery falls outside the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Berhanemeskel v. 22 Lopez, No. 2:24-CV-01371-JAD-DJA,

, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 18, 2025) (quoting 23 Medina v. County of Los Angeles, No. 2:21-cv-05554-DMG-KESx,

, at *3 24 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2022)). 25 First, Plaintiff’s deposition is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case under Rule 26 26(b)(1). He alleges that Defendant Elgan, the Esmeralda County Clerk, denied him access to the 27 court by refusing to file his motions. Plaintiff’s testimony is important so that Defendant can ] Second, none of the three concerns under Rule 26(b)(2) warrant denial of Defendant’s 2 || motion. Plaintiffs deposition is neither cumulative nor duplicative because he is likely to hold 3 || key information about his claims, and his testimony may lead to the discovery of other pertinent 4 || evidence. Therefore, it is unlikely that the information from his deposition can be obtained from a 5 || more convenient source (concern one). In addition, it does not appear that Defendant has had 6 || ample opportunity to obtain the information sought here (concern two), and as discussed above, 7 || this discovery does not fall outside the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) (concern three). 8 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to take the deposition of Daryll Lucas (ECF 9 || No. 71) is GRANTED. 10 1] DATED: October 1, 2025 12 13 Kx gr la WEE, BRENDA WEKSLER □ 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28