Arellano v. R.J. Donovan Detention Facility et al

Filing 146

ORDER Denying 145 Motion to Receive Deposition Transcript. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 6/9/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dxj)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

RAUL ARELLANO, JR.,

Case No.: 14-cv-590 JLS (JLB)
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

11

ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO RECEIVE DEPOSITION
TRANSCRIPT

OFFICER HODGE et al.,
Defendants.

12

[ECF No. 145]

13
14

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to receive a copy of the transcript of the

15

deposition taken on March 24, 2017. (ECF No. 145.) Plaintiff asserts that he submitted a

16

request for a copy of the transcript to U.S. Legal Support, the court reporting agency that

17

transcribed the deposition, on April 7, 2017, but he has not received a response to his

18

request. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff now requests that the Court either send him a copy of the

19

deposition transcript or “tell its court reporting service” to send him a copy of the transcript.

20

(Id.)

21

The Court does not have the authority to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the

22

requested deposition transcript free of charge. A person who transcribes a deposition is

23

required to provide a copy of the transcript to any party or the deponent only when paid

24

reasonable charges therefor. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3). Although Plaintiff was granted leave

25

to proceed in forma pauperis in this case (ECF No. 3), it is well established that “the

26

expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when

27

authorized by Congress.” Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.3d 210, 211 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting

28

United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976)). The expenditure of public funds

14-cv-590 JLS (JLB)

1

for deposition transcripts is not authorized by the in forma pauperis statute or any other

2

statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Franklin v. Felker, No. 2:11-cv-2055 KJN P, 2012 WL

3

3234234, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2012). Accordingly, the Court cannot grant Plaintiff’s

4

request that it provide him a copy of the March 24, 2017 deposition transcript free of

5

charge. See Claiborne v. Battey, No. CIV S-06-2919 FCD EFB P, 2009 WL 530352, at *3

6

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2009).

7

Nor does the Court have the authority to compel U.S. Legal Support to provide

8

Plaintiff with a copy of the deposition transcript free of charge. U.S. Legal Support is not

9

a court reporting service of the Court, as Plaintiff’s motion suggests. (See ECF No. 145 at

10

3.) And, even if it were, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court cannot

11

compel it to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the deposition transcript free of charge. See

12

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3); see also Brown v. Castillo, No. CV-F-02-6018 AWI DLB P, 2006

13

WL 1408452, at *1 (May 22, 2006) (“Neither this court nor defendant can provide a copy

14

[of the deposition transcript] to plaintiff without the authorization of the court reporter.”).

15

Accordingly, if Plaintiff desires a copy of the March 24, 2017 deposition transcript, he

16

must request it from U.S. Legal Support and pay U.S. Legal Support the reasonable charges

17

for the transcript. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3).

18
19
20
21

For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a copy of the March
24, 2017 deposition transcript (ECF No. 145).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 9, 2017

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

14-cv-590 JLS (JLB)