Ransom v. Gonzalez et al
Filing
82
ORDER Denying 81 Motion for Court-Appointed Deposition Officer, without Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 07/29/14. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LEONARD RANSOM, JR.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
1:10-cv-00397-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
COURT-APPOINTED DEPOSITION
OFFICER, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(Doc. 81.)
DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
I.
BACKGROUND
18
Leonard Ransom, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
19
pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on
20
March 8, 2010. (Doc. 1.) This case is presently in the discovery phase, with a deadline of
21
September 9, 2014, for the parties to complete discovery. (Doc. 60.) On July 28, 2014,
22
Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to appoint an officer to take depositions upon written
23
questions, pursuant to Rule 28(a)(1)(B). (Doc. 81.)
24
II.
DEPOSITIONS BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS – RULE 31
25
If a party wishes to conduct oral or written depositions, he or she must comply with the
26
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Depositions by written questions entail more than simply
27
mailing questions to the deponents and awaiting their written responses. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
28
1
1
31. Rule 28 authorizes the court to appoint an officer to administer oaths and take testimony
2
during depositions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(a)(1)(B).
3
Plaintiff’s Motion
4
Plaintiff requests the court to appoint an officer to take depositions in this case upon
5
written questions propounded to Warden John Soto and William R. Adams, pursuant to Rule
6
31, and to prepare and certify the depositions upon written questions.
7
Discussion
8
Plaintiff is advised that he is responsible for bearing the costs of any deposition
9
discovery that he conducts, including but not limited to court reporter fees and costs for
10
transcription. Plaintiff=s in forma pauperis status does not entitle him to a court-appointed
11
deposition reporter to take depositions, or free deposition transcripts. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1915;
12
Wright v. United States, 948 F.Supp. 61, 61-62 (M.D.Fla.1996) (parties proceeding in forma
13
pauperis are responsible for payment of discovery costs, including the costs of depositions, fees
14
for court reporters and transcripts); Papas v. Hanlon, 849 F.2d 702 703-04 (1st Cir. 1988)
15
(affirming an order requiring litigants proceeding in forma pauperis to pay stenographer's fees);
16
Barcelo v. Brown, 655 F.2d 458, 462 (1st Cir. 1981) (in forma pauperis statute does not
17
authorize a district court to order payment of transcripts); St. Hilaire v. Winhelm 79 F.3d 1154
18
(9th Cir. 1996) (unpublished) (citing Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 158-59 (3d Cir. 1993)
19
(finding no abuse of discretion because there is no authorization for the court to commit federal
20
money to provide indigent litigants with copies of deposition transcripts).
21
The Court will direct the Clerk=s Office to send Plaintiff a copy of Rules 28 and 31. If,
22
after reviewing the rules, Plaintiff believes he is able to conduct written depositions in
23
compliance with the rules, Plaintiff shall notify the Court and make a showing that he is able
24
and willing to bear the costs of the deposition, including the costs of retaining an officer to take
25
responses and prepare the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(b). At that juncture, the Court will
26
reconsider Plaintiff=s request and will determine what course of action is needed to facilitate the
27
depositions.
28
///
2
1
III.
CONCLUSION
2
Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:
3
1.
4
5
Plaintiff=s request for a court-appointed deposition officer is DENIED without
prejudice; and
2.
6
The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of Rules 28 and 31 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
7
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 29, 2014
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?