Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten Inc.

Filing 70

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying 69 Motion to Compel Production. (kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2019) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/5/2019: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ivaS, COURTSTAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GEORGETTE G. PURNELL, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 18-cv-01402-PJH (KAW) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION v. RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN INC., Re: Dkt. No. 69 Defendant. 12 13 On February 21, 2019, the Court received Plaintiff's motion to compel production. (Plf.'s 14 Mot. to Compel, Dkt. No. 69.) The Court deems the matter suitable for disposition without a 15 hearing pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Having considered the motion and the relevant legal 16 authority, the Court DENIES the motion. 17 As an initial matter, Plaintiff's motion fails to comply with the Court's standing order, 18 which is available at: https://cand.uscourts.gov/kaworders. Prior to filing any discovery-related 19 motions, parties must meet and confer on the discovery dispute in an effort to resolve the matter. 20 (Westmore Standing Ord. ¶ 12.) Only after meeting and conferring may the parties file a joint 21 discovery letter, which must lay out each party's position. (Westmore Standing Ord. ¶ 13.) Here, 22 there is no showing that Plaintiff made any attempt to meet and confer with Defendant prior to 23 filing the motion to compel. While Plaintiff is pro se, Plaintiff must still comply with the Court's 24 standing order. In the future, Plaintiff must comply with the Court's meet and confer requirements 25 and discovery procedures prior to filing any discovery disputes. Otherwise, the Court may 26 terminate the discovery motion without reviewing the merits. 27 In the interest of efficiency, however, the Court will rule on Plaintiff's motion to compel. 28 On December 31, 2018, Plaintiff requested production of or an opportunity to inspect a certified 1 copy of Plaintiff's December 5, 2018 deposition transcript. (Plf.'s Mot. to Compel, Exh. A at 2.) 2 Plaintiff argues that she should be given the deposition transcript because she has been granted in 3 forma pauperis status. Courts in this Circuit, however, have explained that "[a] defendant is not 4 required to provide the plaintiff with a copy of his deposition transcript," and that a "plaintiff 5 cannot obtain a copy of h[er] deposition transcript free of charge through a request for 6 production." Vanderbusch v. Chokatos, Case No. 1:13-cv-1422-LJO-EPG (PC), 2018 U.S. Dist. 7 LEXIS 100860, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 14, 2018); see also Boston v. Garcia, Case No. 2:10-cv- 8 1782 KJM DAD P, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38921, at *5 ("defendants are not required to provide 9 plaintiff with a copy of his deposition transcript"). Further, courts have found that even when a "plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, such status does not entitle 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 h[er] to a free copy of h[er] deposition transcript." Jones v. Jimenez, Case No. 1:14-cv-2045- 12 DAD-SAB (PC), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72425, at *11 n.2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2018); see also 13 Halliford v. Cal. Dep't of Corrections, No. CIV S-05-0573 FCD DAD P, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14 35184, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2010) ("There is no statutory requirement for the government to 15 provide a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis with copies of a deposition transcript."). 16 17 18 19 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant to produce or permit the inspection of Plaintiff's December 5, 2018 deposition transcript. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 5, 2019 __________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge 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?