Fahie v. Tyson et al

Filing 75

ORDER DENYING 61 70 Motions for a Copy of Deposition Transcript, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/22/2009. (Jessen, A)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Plaintiff's second request is responsive to Defendant's opposition to his first motion, and should be treated a s a reply, with Defendant's second opposition treated as a surreply.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ANTONIO FAHIE, Plaintiff, v.

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01132-AWI-GSA PC ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COPY OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT (Docs. 61 and 70)

H. TYSON, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff Antonio Fahie ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 6, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a transcript of his deposition taken on June 26, 2008. Defendant filed an opposition on November 20, 2008. Plaintiff filed a second request on December 18, 2008, and Defendant filed an opposition on December 29, 2008.1 Plaintiff is entitled to review the deposition transcript for thirty days and submit a signed statement listing any changes if, prior to the completion of the deposition, Plaintiff made a request for review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)(1). Further, Plaintiff must be provided with a copy of the deposition transcript if he pays the reasonable charges. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3). Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence that prior to the completion of the deposition, he requested to review it once the transcript was completed, and Plaintiff has made no showing that he is willing to pay for the transcript. Although Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, that status

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

does not allow for a free copy of the deposition transcript. See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989). For these reasons, Plaintiff's motion for a copy of his deposition transcript is HEREBY DENIED.2

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij

January 22, 2009

/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendant addressed Plaintiff's request as, in part, a motion to compel. The Court does not construe the m o t i o n as one to compel the production of a transcript and such a motion would be barred as untimely in any event, a s the discovery deadline was July 28, 2008.

2

2