Feuer et al v. Cornerstone Hotels Corp. et al

Filing 32

ORDER denying 29 Motion to Compel. For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, Defendant's motion to compel production of the transcript of his deposition testimony is denied in its entirety. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke on 12/2/2015. (Walsh, Kenneth)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------x
SETH FEUER and SUSANN FEUER,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER
14-cv-5388 (JFB)(SIL)

-againstCORNERSTONE HOTELS CORP. d/b/a SUN N
SAND HOTEL and OCEAN BREEZE MOTEL,
and NAEEM BUTT, in his individual and
professional capacity,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------x
LOCKE, Magistrate Judge:

Presently before the Court is pro se Defendant Naeem Butt’s (“Defendant”)
letter motion seeking an Order compelling Plaintiffs to provide a copy of the
transcript of his September 30, 2015 deposition. See Docket Entry (“DE”) [29]. In
opposition, Plaintiffs Seth Feuer and Susann Feuer (“Plaintiffs”) argue that
Defendant’s motion should be denied because: (i) Defendant did not request a copy
of the transcript prior to the conclusion of his deposition as required by Fed. R. Civ.
P. 30(e); and (ii) even if Defendant did request to review his deposition testimony,
Plaintiffs are under no obligation to provide a copy of the transcript. See DE [30].
For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s motion is denied.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30:
On request by the deponent or a party before the deposition is
completed, the deponent must be allowed 30 days after being notified by
the officer that the transcript or recording is available in which:
a) to review the transcript or recording; and

1

b) if there are changes in form or substance, to sign a
statement listing the changes and the reasons for making
them.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)(1).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 further provides that depositions are to be conducted before
an officer authorized to administer oaths, and that, “[w]hen paid reasonable charges,
the officer must furnish a copy of the transcript or recording to any party or the
deponent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(5)(A), (f)(3). Accordingly, “Rule 30(e) does not require
Plaintiffs to provide or pay for transcripts for the deponents.”

Payano v. A&S

Broadway Produce, No. 13 Civ. 863, slip op. at 1 (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2014); see also
Rivera v. DiSabato, 962 F. Supp. 38, 40 (D.N.J. 1997) (“Absent from Rule 30 is any
provision entitling an adverse litigant, even an adverse indigent litigant, to free
transcripts of a deposition.”); Kinan v. City of Brockton Mass., 112 F.R.D. 206, 207 (D.
Mass. 1986) (“[Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)] precludes a party from employing the procedures
of Rules 34 and 37 . . . to obtain copies of depositions taken in the case from another
party who has ordered transcripts and received them upon payment of the applicable
fee.”).
Based on the foregoing, and even assuming Defendant requested to review his
deposition testimony prior to the conclusion of his deposition, Plaintiffs would be
under no obligation to provide a copy of the transcript. Rather, Fed. R. Civ. P. 30
contemplates that any such request be made to the officer before whom the deposition
was conducted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3). Therefore, Defendant may not compel
production of his deposition testimony transcript from Plaintiffs and his motion is
denied in its entirety.
2

Dated: Central Islip, New York
December 2, 2015

SO ORDERED
s/ Steven I. Locke
STEVEN I. LOCKE
United States Magistrate Judge

3