Morgan v. Murphy et al

Filing 46

ORDER denying 39 Motion for Deposition Costs; denying 41 Motion for Medical Examination. Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 7/8/2011. (Garcia, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
LLOYD GEORGE MORGAN, JR.,
v.
BRIAN K. MURPHY, ET AL.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIV. NO. 3:10CV1361 (JCH)

RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION TO PAY FOR DEPOSITIONS [DOC. # 39] AND
FOR AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION [DOC. # 41]
Plaintiff Lloyd George Morgan, Jr. filed a Motion for the
Court to Pay for Depositions [doc. # 39] and a Motion for the
Court to Pay for an Independent Medical Examination [doc. # 41].
Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, argues that the Court
should authorize payment for the depositions and a medical
examination because he is indigent.
As to the depositions, plaintiff maintains that he needs to
depose the named defendants as part of discovery. In forma
pauperis status does not include the right to have depositions
funded by the Court. By authorizing indigent persons to file an
action without prepayment of the filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915
does not authorize the payment of deposition expenses by the
court. See Alston v. Pafumi, Civil No. 09 CV 1978 (CSH), 2011 WL
63420, at *1 (D. Conn. Jan. 5, 2011) (citing Jackson v. Woodford,
Civil No. 05 CV 0513-L(NLS), 2007 WL 2580566, at *1 (S.D.Cal.

1

Aug. 17, 2007)(“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), [p]laintiff's in
forma pauperis status entitles him to ... free service of process
by United States Marshals, however, it does not entitle him to
waiver of witness fees, mileage or deposition officer fees.”)
(citations omitted); Murray v. Palmer, No. 903-CV-1010 (DNH/GHL),
2006 WL 2516485, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2006)(“a litigant
proceeding in forma pauperis does not have a right to a waiver of
(1) the cost of a deposition stenographer, (2) the daily
attendance fee and mileage allowance that must be presented to an
opposing witness under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, or (3) the copying cost of any deposition
transcripts.”)(footnotes omitted); Tajeddini v. Gulch, 942 F.
Supp. 772, 782 (D. Conn. 1996)(denying plaintiff's motion to
depose defendants because plaintiff did not indicate how he would
pay deposition expenses and in forma pauperis status does not
require advancement of funds by the court for deposition
expenses)).
Further, plaintiff’s motion fails to set forth any
information that would enable the Court to determine the
reasonableness or necessity of the depositions and fails to
specify which of the numerous defendants, twenty-nine in total,
plaintiff wishes to depose. See Ebenhart v. Power, 309 F. Supp.
660 (S.D.N.Y. 1969) (denying motion for costs. Therefore,
plaintiff’s request for the Court to pay for the cost of deposing

2

defendants is DENIED.
As to the medical examination, plaintiff argues that an MRI
is necessary to confirm or deny his allegations of suffering a
brain tumor or other illness in his neck and head. Akin to the
request for deposition costs, there is no statutory authority to
pay a medical examination as part of discovery for a plaintiff
proceeding in forma pauperis. See Toliver v. Community Action
Com'n to Help the Economy, Inc., 613

F. Supp. 1070 (S.D.N.Y.

1985), aff’d, 800 F.2d 1128, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 863.
Therefore, plaintiff’s request for the Court to pay for a medical
examination is DENIED.
For these reasons, plaintiff’s Motion for the Court to Pay
for Depositions [doc. # 39] is DENIED and Motion for the Court to
Pay for Medical Examination [doc. # 41] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED at Bridgeport this 8th day of July 2011.

/s/
HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3