Loyola v. Potter

Filing 57

ORDER DENYING 58 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO REVIEW TRANSCRIPT. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 4/15/2010. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2010) Modified on 4/16/2010 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/16/2010: # 1 Certificate of Service) (nah, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EDGARDO LOYOLA, Plaintiff, v. JOHN E. POTTER, Defendant. _______________________________/ At the April 7, 2010 hearing on defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court granted plaintiff Edgardo Loyola's request to review the original transcript of his deposition. Plaintiff claims that the copy of the transcript that he received from defendant differs from the original. The court allowed plaintiff one hour to review the original in the courtroom following the hearing, and ordered him to submit a statement within one week detailing any differences between the original and the copy. On April 14, 2010, the day his statement was due, plaintiff filed a request for additional time to review the original transcript, claiming that he "did not have time to read it carefully because it is 188 pages long" and he has "difficulty with English." The request is DENIED. Plaintiff was given an opportunity to review the transcript, and the court is not required to compel the further attendance of defendant's counsel, plus the required court officers, so that plaintiff can read all 188 pages of the original. Plaintiff was provided with a copy of the transcript by counsel for the defendant, and she has certified that it is a true and correct copy of the original. No. C 09-0575 PJH ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 However, if plaintiff is still persuaded that there are differences between the original and the copy, he shall submit a statement to the court, no later than April 26, 2010, listing the exact citations (pages and lines in the deposition transcript) in defendant's motion which he believes are incorrect. If defendant wishes to respond to the statement, he may do so no later than May 3, 2010. The court will compare the portions of the transcript quoted in defendant's motion with the same portions of the original, and will issue an order as to the accuracy of the copy. The court will not review the entire transcript, nor compare the entire original to the entire copy. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 15, 2010 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 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?