IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 24, 2011
DEWEY TERRY, PLAINTIFF,
JOHN HIVILAND, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendants to produce certain documents on November 17, 2010, (Doc. 29) and a motion for the production of his deposition testimony on January 7, 2011, (Doc. 31).
Within twenty-one days, defendants shall respond to plaintiff's November 17, 2010, motion to compel (Doc. 29).
Plaintiff's motion for the production of his deposition testimony is denied. 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 a different method. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3). The officer must provide a copy thereof to any party or to the deponent upon payment of reasonable charges therefor. Id. The court cannot order defendant to provide plaintiff a copy of the transcript of the deposition. Plaintiff must obtain it from the officer before whom the deposition was taken pursuant to Rule 30(f)(3).
Furthermore, there is no provision under the Federal Rules or the Local Rules for free copies of deposition transcripts. The expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress. See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for the purpose sought by plaintiff.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants shall respond to the November 17, 2010, motion to compel (Doc. 29), within twenty-one days of this order.
2. Plaintiff's January 7, 2011, motion for production of his deposition (Doc. 31) is denied.
GGH: AB terr0068.ord
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.