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)

Download PDF
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

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?