Johnson v. Cain et at

Filing 81

ORDER granting 60 Motion to Stay such that the defendants are hereby directed to respond to the plaintiffs request for production of documents filed in January, 2011, with the additional caveat that the defendants are not required to provide to th e plaintiff a copy of the transcript of his deposition conducted on December 8, 2010 and denying 70 MOTION for Leave to File Second Request for Production of Documents and denying 73 Motion to Compel filed by David Scott Johnson,. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine Noland on 06/17/11. (PAH). Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine Noland on 06/17/11. (PAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DAVID SCOTT JOHNSON (#84970)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
MR. BURL CAIN, WARDEN, ET AL.

NO. 09-0454-BAJ-CN

O R D E R
This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff’s (1) Motion to
Stay

...

and

for

Leave

to

File

Second

Request

for

Production

of

Documents, (2) Motion for Leave to File Amended Second Request or Third
Request for Production of Documents, and (3) Request for Leave of Court
for

Additional

Discovery

rec.doc.nos. 60, 70 and

...

and

for

Order

Compelling

Discovery,

73.

By Order dated October 19, 2009, rec.doc.no. 8, the Court directed
the parties to complete all discovery within ninety (90) days of the
defendants’ first appearance.

On October 12, 2010, the defendant

appeared herein through the filing of an Answer, and on November 29,
2010, the plaintiff propounded a request for production of documents, to
which request the defendant responded on December 20, 2010.

On January

14, 2011, several days outside of the 90-day discovery period, the
plaintiff filed a request for leave to propound three additional requests
for production of documents, see rec.doc.no. 60, seeking thereby to
obtain (1) a copy of the transcript of his deposition taken on December
8, 2010, (2) copies of medical records reflecting treatment to his
shoulder after the incident of alleged excessive force on August 11, 2008
and (3) a copy of the recording of his disciplinary board hearing
conducted on August 13, 2008.

Finally, on March 14 and 24, 2011,

respectively, the plaintiff filed additional requests for leave to
propound discovery, see rec.doc.nos. 70 and 73, seeking thereby to obtain
copies of any and all grievances or complaints made by other inmates
relative to defendant Whitaker and copies of documents pertaining to an
interview allegedly conducted of the plaintiff on an unspecified date in
2009.
Initially, the Court concludes, relative to the plaintiff’s first
request for leave to conduct additional discovery, rec.doc.no. 60, that
because this motion, filed in January, 2011, was neither far outside the
discovery period nor unduly burdensome, the motion shall be granted,
allowing the plaintiff the discovery requested therein, with one caveat.
Specifically, the defendant shall not be required to provide to the
plaintiff a copy of the transcript of his deposition conducted on
December 8, 2010.

In this regard, Rule 30(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure provides that, “[w]hen paid reasonable charges”, the
reporter conducting a deposition shall furnish a copy of the transcript
to any party.

It is generally recognized that a party desiring a copy

of a deposition transcript is obligated to contact the reporter and make
arrangements for the payment of a reasonable charge for such copy.

See

Schroer v. United States, 250 F.R.D. 531 (D. Colo. 2008), and cases cited
therein.

Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled to a free copy of

his deposition transcript from the defendants and is required to obtain
a

copy

thereof

by

contacting

the

reporter

who

presided

over

the

deposition.
The Court further concludes, relative to the plaintiff’s motions for
leave to conduct additional discovery filed in March, 2011, rec.doc.nos
70 and 73, that these shall be denied as untimely.

These motions were

filed long after expiration of the allowable discovery period, and the

plaintiff has failed to show any justification for his failure to seek
the referenced discovery during the allowable period.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion to Stay ... and for Leave
to File Second Request for Production of Documents, rec.doc.no. 60, be
and it is hereby GRANTED, such that the defendants are hereby directed
to respond to the plaintiff’s request for production of documents filed
in January, 2011, with the additional caveat that the defendants are not
required to provide to the plaintiff a copy of the transcript of his
deposition conducted on December 8, 2010.1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Amended Second Request or Third Request for Production of Documents,
rec.doc.no. 70, and Request for Leave of Court for Additional Discovery
... and for Order Compelling Discovery, rec.doc.no. 73, be and they are
hereby DENIED.
Signed in chambers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, June 17, 2011.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHRISTINE NOLAND

1

To the extent that the instant motion, rec.doc.no. 60, also
requests that the Court withhold a ruling on the plaintiff’s pending
Motion in Limine, rec.doc.no. 57, this request is denied. The Motion in
Limine was filed in January, 2011, and the parties have had ample
opportunity to address and argue the issues raised therein.