Sandoval et al v. County of Sonoma et al

Filing 174

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF HIS DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on August 13, 2014. (nclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/13/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12 RAFAEL MATEOS-SANDOVAL, and
others,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 11-cv-05817 TEH (NC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
HIS DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT
Re: Dkt. No. 163

COUNTY OF SONOMA, and others,
Defendants.

17
18
19

Plaintiff Simeon Avendano Ruiz demands that defendant Santa Rosa provide him

20 with a copy of the transcript of his deposition taken in this case. Ruiz’s counsel was present
21 at the deposition and had an opportunity to request a copy of the transcript from the court
22 reporter, but chose not to do so. Instead, Ruiz filed a motion asserting that the transcript is a
23 “previous statement” of a party that must be produced to him under Federal Rule of Civil
24 Procedure 26(b)(3)(C).
25

Ruiz states that “No rule obligates a party to seek a discoverable record from a non-

26 party [the court reporter] if the opposing party possesses the non-privileged record.” Dkt.
27 No. 163 at 1. Not so. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C)(ii) requires that the
28 Court “must limit” discovery otherwise allowed by the rules if the party seeking discovery
Case No. 11-cv-05817 TEH (NC)
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
DISPUTE

1 “has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action.”
2

Here, Ruiz had more than “ample opportunity” to obtain his deposition transcript

3 directly from the court reporter. As a result, his request to compel production from Santa
4 Rosa is denied.
5

Because the Court resolves this discovery dispute by applying Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(ii), it

6 does not need to reach other issues raised by the parties: (1) whether a transcript from the
7 present case constitutes a “previous” statement under Rule 26(b)(3)(C); (2) whether
8 production of the transcript to a party who earlier chose not to pay for it would violate the
9 court reporter’s rights; and (3) whether asking for a transcript from a party who paid for it
10 instead of ordering the transcript from the court reporter is unethical.
11

Any party may object to this nondispositive order, but must do so within 14 days.

12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Date: August 13, 2014

15

_________________________
Nathanael M. Cousins
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-05817 TEH (NC)
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
DISPUTE

2