Neys v. Mayo et al

Filing 35

ORDER by Judge James Donato denying 31 Motion ; denying 32 Motion ; denying 33 Motion to Compel; granting 34 Motion (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
SEMYON NEYS,

7

Case No. 12-cv-04241-JD

8
Plaintiff,

9

ORDER
v.

10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Re: Dkt. Nos. 31, 32, 33, 34
MAYO, et al.,

12
13

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff proceeds with a civil rights action alleging that defendants utilized excessive force

16

against him. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied and they were ordered to file a motion for

17

summary judgment. Counsel for defendants previously stated that plaintiff refused to answer a

18

number of questions during a deposition because plaintiff was concerned it would interfere with

19

his sentencing hearing on a criminal case. Counsel agreed to suspend the deposition until after

20

sentencing and plaintiff indicated he would cooperate at that time. Plaintiff was sentenced on

21

August 15, 2014, and defendants have requested a second extension in order to ascertain where

22

plaintiff has been incarcerated, depose him, and file a motion for summary judgment. 1 The

23

extension will be GRANTED, but additional lengthy extensions will not be granted.

24
25

Plaintiff has also filed several motions; seeking an order to compel discovery, for an
investigator and counsel, and to compel a deposition of defendants.

26
27
28

1

Defendants indicate that plaintiff has or will soon be transferred from his current jail. Plaintiff is
reminded he must update the Court with his current address if he is transferred or released from
custody.

1

Motion to Compel

2

A party may bring a motion to compel discovery when another party has failed to respond

3

or respond adequately to a discovery request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3). A party may “obtain

4

discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense” but

5

“for good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter

6

involved in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). As the moving party, plaintiff bears the burden of

7

informing the Court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel and for each

8

disputed response, why defendants’ objections are not justified or why the response provided is

9

deficient.

10

Plaintiff states that he has requested discovery from defendants about the other sheriff’s

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

officials on duty on the date of the incident and a complete list of inmates present in the same

12

housing unit, but that defendants declined to produce. Plaintiff has not provided enough

13

information for the Court to decide the issue. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is dismissed without

14

prejudice. He may file a new motion to compel specifically stating his discovery requests,

15

defendants’ specific responses, and plaintiff must state why the responses are deficient and why he

16

in entitled to the discovery.

17

Plaintiff also asks the Court to compel defendants to provide a copy of the deposition

18

transcript from the deposition in which plaintiff refused to answer many questions. The Court

19

cannot compel defendants to provide a copy of the deposition transcript. The Federal Rules do not

20

require the government to provide a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis with a copy of his

21

deposition transcript. Glass v. Fields, No. 1:09–cv–00098–AW I–BAM PC, 2012 WL 1898899, *

22

2 (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2012); Hallford v. California Dep't of Corrections, CIV S–05–0573–FCD–

23

DAD–P, 2010 WL 921166, *1 (E.D. Cal. March 12, 2010). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30

24

provides that the deposition transcript is available to a party upon payment of reasonable charges

25

to the deposition officer. Plaintiff is able to obtain a copy of his deposition transcript by

26

contacting the deposition officer and paying the required fee. Plaintiff may not use discovery to

27

obtain free copies of documents equally available to him. Jones v. Lundy, 1:03–cv–05980–AWI–

28

LJO PC, 2007 WL 214580, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan.25, 2007).
2

1

The Court cannot pay for the transcript. Although the Court granted plaintiff leave to

2

proceed in forma pauperis, “‘the expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is

3

proper only when authorized by Congress.’” Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211 (9th Cir. 1989)

4

(quoting United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976). The expenditure of public funds

5

for deposition transcripts is not authorized by the in forma pauperis statute or any other statute.

6

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

7

Motion for Counsel and Investigator

8

Plaintiff has also requested the appointment of counsel and funds for an investigator in

9

order to subpoena a witness. The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to
represent an indigent litigant only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

requires an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the ability of the

12

plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.

13

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff appears able to present his

14

claims adequately, and the issues are not complex. Therefore, the motion to appoint counsel is

15

denied. Nor has plaintiff demonstrated that an investigator is necessary. If plaintiff learns of the

16

address for the witness, the Court will issue a subpoena.

17

Motion for Deposition

18

Plaintiff has also asked for an order to compel defendants to be deposed by plaintiff.

19

Plaintiff has not indicated whether he has secured a stenographer and attempted to schedule a

20

deposition and if defendants have not complied. To the extent plaintiff seeks an order to compel

21

before attempting to organize a deposition, it is denied. The Court generally is not involved in the

22

discovery process and only becomes involved when there is a dispute between the parties about

23

discovery responses. Discovery requests and responses normally are exchanged between the

24

parties without any copy sent to the Court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(d) (listing discovery requests and

25

responses that “must not” be filed with the Court until they are used in the proceeding or the Court

26

orders otherwise). Only when the parties have a discovery dispute that they cannot resolve among

27

themselves should the parties even consider asking the Court to intervene in the discovery process.

28

The Court does not have enough time or resources to oversee all discovery, and therefore requires
3

1

that the parties present to it only their very specific disagreements. To promote the goal of

2

addressing only very specific disagreements (rather than becoming an overseer of all discovery),

3

the Court requires that the parties meet and confer to try to resolve their disagreements before

4

seeking Court intervention. See Fed. R. Civ .P. 37(a); N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37. Where, as here,

5

one of the parties is a prisoner, the Court does not require in-person meetings and instead allows

6

the prisoner and defense counsel to meet and confer by telephone or exchange of letters. Although

7

the format of the meet-and-confer process changes, the substance of the rule remains the same: the

8

parties must engage in a good faith effort to meet and confer before seeking Court intervention in

9

any discovery dispute.
CONCLUSION

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

1.

Plaintiff’s motions (Docket Nos. 31, 32, 33) are DENIED as set forth above.

12

2.

Defendants’ motion for an extension (Docket No. 34) is GRANTED. Defendants

13
14

have until December 1, 2014, to file a motion for summary judgment.
3.

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

15

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of

16

Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to

17

do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of

18

Civil Procedure 41(b).

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 3, 2014
______________________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
4

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SEMYON NEYS,

Case No. 12-cv-04241-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

MAYO, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on 10/3/2014, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18
19

Semyon Neys ID: 607720
Glenn E. Dyer Detention Facility
550 6th Street
Oakland, CA 94607

20
21

Dated: 10/3/2014

22
23

Richard W. Wieking
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
5