Yates v. West Contra Costa Unified School District
Filing
93
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Request for Waiver of Deposition Costs 79 Letter filed by Fernando Yates. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 3/3/2017. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/3/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (rmm2S, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
FERNANDO YATES,
Case No. 16-cv-01077-MEJ
Plaintiff,
8
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF
DEPOSITION COSTS
v.
9
10
WEST CONTRA COSTA UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Re: Dkt. No. 79
12
13
Pro per Plaintiff Fernando Yates (“Plaintiff”) filed a “Request . . . for the Court to Cover
14
and/or Waive Costs Associated to Deposition of Defendant.” See Dkt. No. 79. In fact, Plaintiff
15
does not seek to depose Defendant West Contra Costa Unified School District (the “District”), but
16
three current or former employees of the District. Plaintiff requests the Court “cover and/or
17
waive costs associated” with deposing nonparties Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources
18
Kenneth Whitmore, Director of Human Resources Cheryl Cotton, and Principal David Luongo.
19
Id.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff’s request for the Court to pay his deposition fees is based on his in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) status. See id. While the IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, allows a federal court to waive
the filing fee that would cause hardship and prevent an indigent litigant from accessing the courts,
“it does not require the court to order financing of the entire action or waiver of fees or expenses
for witnesses.” Merchant v. Lopez, 2010 WL 1948922, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 12, 2010) (citing
Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The magistrate judge correctly ruled [the IFP
statute] does not waive payment of fees or expenses for witnesses” plaintiff wanted to call at trial);
Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211–12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (“Although the plain language
[of the IFP statute] provides for service of process for an indigent’s witnesses, it does not waive
1
payment of fees or expenses for those witnesses. The Supreme Court has declared that ‘the
2
expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by
3
Congress.’ . . . We join the Third, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits in finding no such
4
authorization. . . .”)). “[N]othing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Ninth Circuit cases
5
authorize or require the courts to finance or subsidize fees and costs associated with prosecuting a
6
civil action.” King v. Calderwood, 2015 WL 7428552, at *1 (D. Nev. Nov. 20, 2015) (citing
7
Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1991) (right of access to courts does not include
8
unlimited free photocopying)).
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to waive and/or cover the cost of deposing these
three witnesses.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
14
15
Dated: March 3, 2017
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?