IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 14, 2010
MICHAEL CHESS, PLAINTIFF,
J. DOVEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's April 28, 2010 motion to compel. Therein, plaintiff seeks a transcript of his deposition that was taken on March 5, 2010.
Defendants have not opposed the motion.*fn1 Nonetheless, plaintiff's motion will be denied. There is no statutory requirement for the government to provide a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis with copies of a deposition transcript. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); see also Whittenberg v. Roll, No. CIV S-04-2313 FCD JFM P, 2006 WL 657381 at *5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2006) (denying plaintiff's motion to compel defendant to provide him with a copy of the deposition transcript free of charge). Moreover, under Rule 30(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the officer before whom a deposition is taken must retain stenographic notes of the proceedings or a copy of the recording of a deposition taken by different method. The officer must also provide a copy of the transcript to any party or to the deponent upon payment of reasonable charges therefor. The court will not order defense counsel or the defendants to provide plaintiff with a copy of his deposition transcript. Plaintiff must obtain it from the officer before whom the deposition was taken. See Claiborne v. Battery, No. CIV S-06-2919 FCD EFB, 2009 WL 530352, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2009) (denying plaintiff's request for a court order directing the defendant to provide him with a copy of his deposition transcript); Brown v. Castillo, No. CV F-02-6018 AWI DLB, 2006 WL 1408452, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2006) (same).
For the reasons discussed above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. No. 84) is denied.