Thibodeau v. ADT Security Services

Filing 64

ORDER denying 36 Motion for Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 1/8/18. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jrg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

Case No.: 16-cv-2680-GPC-AGS

Clayton Del THIBODEAU,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO DISMISS HIS
DEPOSITION (ECF No. 36)

v.
ADT, LLC, dba ADT Security Services,
aka ADT Holdings, Inc.,

14

Defendant.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

After plaintiff was deposed, he asserts that he was not given timely access to his
deposition transcript in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e). Based on
this alleged procedural error, he moves the Court to: (1) bar the use of his deposition
testimony for any purpose, (2) discipline opposing counsel, (3) discipline the deposition
officer, and (4) order that any further pretrial examination of him be conducted exclusively
by written interrogatories. Even assuming there was a Rule 30(e) violation, the Court has
found no legal authority to justify such drastic sanctions.1 So, plaintiff’s motion is
DENIED.

1

The evidence of a Rule 30(e) violation is marginal, at best. A deponent must review
the transcript within “30 days after being notified.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)(1)(A). The
deposition officer sent plaintiff a letter, notifying him that the transcript would be available
for review for “30 calendar days following” the letter’s date. (Pl. Ex. 1, ECF No. 36, at 6.)
1
16-cv-2680-GPC-AGS

1

Although this specific motion is improper, the Court recognizes that plaintiff

2

Clayton Thibodeau, who is pro se, may have had good reasons for failing to review his

3

deposition transcript before it was certified. On June 24, 2017, he learned that the transcript

4

was available. In the notification letter, the transcription service provided contact

5

information for all seven of its offices. (See Pl. Ex. 3, ECF No. 36, at 8.) But it appears

6

Thibodeau was genuinely confused about which of these offices he was supposed to contact

7

to review the transcript. (See, e.g., ECF No. 53, at 5-6.) He has since learned the deposition

8

officer’s name, email address, and direct phone number. (See ECF No. 53, at 9-10.) Thus,

9

he should have no further confusion about how to obtain a copy of the transcript.

10

To avoid any possible prejudice to Thibodeau, the Court allows him until February 9,

11

2018, to provide defendant with a statement of corrections under Rule 30(e), listing any

12

changes to his May 30, 2017 deposition transcript and the reasons for making them. The

13

parties are reminded that any proposed corrections under Rule 30(e) cannot “alter what was

14

said under oath.” Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enterprises, Inc., 397 F.3d 1217,

15

1225 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

16
17

Dated: January 8, 2018

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

But plaintiff argues that the 30 days should have begun running eight days later, when he
actually received the letter. (Pl. Ex. 3, ECF No. 36, at 8.) Even if plaintiff is correct, he has
not shown that the transcript was unavailable during those eight additional days.
Plaintiff also argues that the notification letter “failed to identify the location where
the transcript was available for review,” as well as a “contact person” and a “reasonable
means for contacting the officer to make arrangements to review the (my) deposition
transcript.” (ECF No. 36, at 2.) But the notification letter did provide the name of the
transcription service, as well as an address and phone number for all seven of its offices.
(Pl. Ex. 1, ECF No. 36, at 6.)
2
16-cv-2680-GPC-AGS