Jones v. Jimenez et al
Filing
113
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 112 Motion for Reconsideration, DENYING Request for Free Copy of Deposition transcript and GRANTING Plaintiff thirty additional days to file an opposition, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/26/2018. (Martin-Gill, S) (30-Day Deadline)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
JEREMY JONES,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
JIMENEZ, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
Case No. 1:14-cv-02045-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION, DENYING REQUEST
FOR FREE COPY OF DEPOSITION
TRANSCRIPT, AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF
THIRTY ADDITIONAL DAYS TO FILE AN
OPPOSITION
[ECF No. 112]
Plaintiff Jeremy Jones is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s September
24, 2018, order and second request for additional time to file an opposition, filed October 25, 2018.
22
I.
23
DISCUSSION
24
A.
25
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s September 24, 2018 order denying his request to
26
Motion for Reconsideration
reopen discovery. (ECF No. 111.)
27
Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt,
28
722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.
1
1
Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature
2
to induce the court to reverse a prior decision.
3
Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th
4
Cir. 1987).
See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of
5
Plaintiff states that his previous discovery efforts were delayed by his due diligence in
6
attempting to settle this case. Plaintiff appears to fault Defendants for his delay in seeking to
7
propound discovery. Plaintiff contends that his request to reopen discovery relates only to the
8
Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment. However, as noted in the Court’s September 24,
9
2018 order, Plaintiff failed to make the necessary showing for discovery under Federal Rule of Civil
10
Procedure 56(d). “Plaintiff failed to diligently pursue discovery in this action. As stated in the
11
Court’s April 30, 2018 order, discovery in this case was open from June 8, 2017 to February 8, 2018,
12
and Plaintiff did not file his first discovery request until January 31, 2018. Plaintiff has had ample
13
time to request discovery and timely file any motions to compel.” (ECF No. 111, at 2:6-10.) (citation
14
omitted). Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s September 24, 2018 order is not sufficient grounds
15
for reconsideration. In addition, Plaintiff cannot seek to reopen the discovery deadline simply because
16
settlement negotiations were unsuccessful.1 As stated in the Court’s July 12, 2018 order, “Plaintiff’s
17
[March 28, 2018] motion to extend the discovery deadline was untimely and did not show any
18
diligence and good cause for the requested extension, particularly as he waited over six months to
19
begin initiating discovery, without any explanation.” (ECF No. 104, Order at 1:26-28.) While “the
20
Court encourages good-faith settlement negotiations, such negotiations are not sufficient cause for
21
failing to initiate any discovery for over six months.” (Id. at 2:4-5.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion
22
for reconsideration of the Court’s September 24, 2018, must be denied.
23
B.
24
Plaintiff requests the Court order Defendants to provide him with a complete copy of his
25
Request for Copy of Deposition Transcript
deposition transcript.
26
27
1
28
A settlement conference was conducted on September 18, 2017, and the discovery deadline did not expire until February
8, 2018. (ECF No. 60.)
2
1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 provides that when paid reasonable charges, the deposition
2
officer must furnish a copy of the transcript or recording to any party or the deponent. Fed. R. Civ. P.
3
30(f)(3). Similarly, California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.510(c) provides that the deponent
4
must obtain a copy of any deposition transcripts at his own expense. In addition, there is no statutory
5
requirement for the government to provide a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis with copies of a
6
deposition transcript. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); see also Whittenberg v. Roll, No. 2:04-cv-2313 FCD
7
JFM, 2006 WL 657381 at *5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2006) (denying plaintiff’s motion to compel
8
defendant to provide him with a copy of the deposition transcript free of charge).
Plaintiff’s request for a complimentary copy of the deposition transcript must be denied. As
9
10
stated above, the Court cannot order the court reporter, defense counsel, or Defendants, to provide
11
Plaintiff a copy of the deposition transcript free of charge. Plaintiff must obtain the deposition
12
transcript from the officer before whom the deposition was taken on January 18, 2018, and February
13
20, 2018. See Boston v. Garcia, No. 2:10-cv-1782 KJM DAD, 2013 WL 1165062 at *2 (E.D. Cal.
14
Mar. 20, 2013) (denying plaintiff’s request for a court order directing the defendant to provide him
15
with a copy of his deposition transcript). Accordingly, as there is no basis to provide Plaintiff a free
16
copy of the deposition transcript, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.
17
C.
Request for Additional Time to file Opposition
18
On the basis of good cause, the Court will grant Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days from the
19
date of service of this order to file an opposition.
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
1
II.
2
ORDER
3
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
4
1.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s September 24, 2018 order is
6
2.
Plaintiff’s request for a complete copy of the deposition transcript is denied; and
7
3.
Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an opposition
5
8
denied;
to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
Dated:
13
October 26, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?