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)

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