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