Aurelio M. Sepulveda v. Woodford et al

Filing 56

ORDER DENYING 54 Motion for Copy of Reporter's Transcript of Deposition; ORDER GRANTING 54 Modification of Discovery Cut-Off Date, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/5/2011. Discovery Cut-Off Date: September 12, 2011. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 AURELIO M. SEPULVEDA, 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01143-AWI-DLB PC ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COPY OF REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF DEPOSITION (DOC. 54) v. JEANNE WOODFORD, et al., 12 ORDER GRANTING MODIFICATION OF DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE Defendants. 13 DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE: September 12, 2011 / 14 15 Plaintiff Aurelio M. Sepulveda (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 16 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 17 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding 18 on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendant Shu-Pin Wu for retaliation in 19 violation of the First Amendment and violation of the Eighth Amendment. 20 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, filed June 29, 2011. Doc. 54. Plaintiff 21 moves for 1) a copy of the reporter’s transcript of Plaintiff’s deposition and 2) a modification of 22 the discovery cut-off date. 23 I. 24 Copy Of Deposition Transcript Plaintiff moves for a copy of a transcript of Plaintiff’s deposition. Plaintiff requests the 25 transcript for purposes of identifying any errors. The deposition was conducted on June 20, 2011 26 at Ironwood State Prison. 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e)(1), 2 4 [o]n request by the deponent . . ., the deponent must be allowed thirty days after being notified by the officer that the transcript or recording is available in which: (A) to review the transcript or recording; and (B) if there are changes in form or substance, to sign a statement listing the changes and the reasons for making them. 5 Once the court reporter has notified Plaintiff that the transcript is available, Plaintiff is 6 granted thirty days in which to review the transcript and provide any changes. A court order is 7 not required. 3 8 Plaintiff is not entitled to a copy of the deposition transcript for free, even if he is 9 proceeding in forma pauperis. See id. 30(f)(3) (requiring the officer who recorded transcript to 10 furnish a copy to deponent “[w]hen paid reasonable charges”); Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 11 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (citations omitted) (finding that expenditure of public funds 12 on behalf of indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress). Accordingly, it is 13 HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a copy of the deposition transcript without 14 payment is denied. 15 II. Modification of Discovery Cut-Off Date 16 Plaintiff seeks a modification of the discovery cut-off date. Plaintiff requests copies of 17 records regarding visits to various medical hospitals. Plaintiff seeks a sixty day extension of the 18 current discovery cut-off date of July 12, 2011. 19 Good cause is required for modification of the Court’s discovery and scheduling order. 20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Good cause having been shown, it is HEREBY ORDERED that 21 Plaintiff’s motion for modification of the discovery cut-off date is granted. The discovery cut-off 22 date is September 12, 2011. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: 3b142a July 5, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?