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).
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?