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).

Download PDF
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?