Goolsby v. Cate et al

Filing 110

ORDER Granting Defendants' Motion To Compel Plaintiff's Deposition (Document 107 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/7/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
THOMAS GOOLSBY,
12
13
v.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01773-LJO-DLB
Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S
DEPOSITION

14
(Document 107)
15

J. GENTRY, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18
19

Plaintiff Thomas Goolsby (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

20
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds
21
22
23

against Defendants Gentry, Noyce, Eubanks, Tyree, Medrano, Holman, Holland and Steadman
for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.
Discovery closed on April 16, 2015, and the dispositive motion deadline is May 15, 2015.

24

On May 4, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition.1 The Court

25
26
27
28

deems the matter suitable for decision without an opposition.
1

Even though the motion was filed after the discovery deadline, it pertains to discovery occurring prior to the
deadline and is therefore timely.
1

1

Even though Plaintiff appeared at his deposition on March 10, 2015, and the April 6,

2

2015, continuation, Defendants were unable to gather the necessary substantive information.

3

Plaintiff insisted on attempting to transcribe the deposition by hand, resulting in Plaintiff’s

4

inability to timely respond to questions and Defendants’ understandable frustration.

5

Plaintiff’s insistence on attempting to take his own transcript of his deposition stems from

6

his belief that he is entitled to a free copy of the deposition transcript. He is incorrect. Plaintiff is

7

not entitled to a free copy of his deposition transcript. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3). He is entitled

8

only to review the transcript and make changes, if he made a request for review before the

9

completion of the deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)(1).

10

Defendants’ motion is therefore GRANTED and Plaintiff is ORDERD to appear for his

11

deposition and answer questions without attempting to write his own transcript. Such actions are

12

obstructive and indicate Plaintiff’s unwillingness to meaningfully participate in his deposition.

13

However, the Court will permit Plaintiff to take an audio recording for his own use, if

14

permitted by the institution. Plaintiff must arrange for the use of audio recording equipment

15

with the Litigation Coordinator. He is informed, however, that this audio recording, or any

16

“transcripts” he may attempt to make from the recording, is not evidence and will not be

17

admissible in any proceedings before this Court.2

18

Plaintiff is warned that if he continues to obstruct Defendants’ attempts to take his

19

deposition, he may be subject to sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be

20

dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

May 7, 2015

23

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
2

28

L. Beck

Proceedings include both trial and any motions filed before the Court.
2