UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 5, 2011
AURELIO M. SEPULVEDA,
JEANNE WOODFORD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COPY OF REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF DEPOSITION (DOC. 54)
ORDER GRANTING MODIFICATION OF DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE
DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE: September 12, 2011
Plaintiff Aurelio M. Sepulveda ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's second amended complaint against Defendant Shu-Pin Wu for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion, filed June 29, 2011. Doc. 54. Plaintiff moves for 1) a copy of the reporter's transcript of Plaintiff's deposition and 2) a modification of the discovery cut-off date.
I. Copy Of Deposition Transcript
Plaintiff moves for a copy of a transcript of Plaintiff's deposition. Plaintiff requests the transcript for purposes of identifying any errors. The deposition was conducted on June 20, 2011 at Ironwood State Prison. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e)(1),
[o]n request by the deponent . . ., the deponent must be allowed thirty days after being notified by the officer that the transcript or recording is available in which:
(A) to review the transcript or recording; and
(B) if there are changes in form or substance, to sign a statement listing the changes and the reasons for making them.
Once the court reporter has notified Plaintiff that the transcript is available, Plaintiff is granted thirty days in which to review the transcript and provide any changes. A court order is not required.
Plaintiff is not entitled to a copy of the deposition transcript for free, even if he is proceeding in forma pauperis. See id. 30(f)(3) (requiring the officer who recorded transcript to furnish a copy to deponent "[w]hen paid reasonable charges"); Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (citations omitted) (finding that expenditure of public funds on behalf of indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a copy of the deposition transcript without payment is denied.
II. Modification of Discovery Cut-Off Date
Plaintiff seeks a modification of the discovery cut-off date. Plaintiff requests copies of records regarding visits to various medical hospitals. Plaintiff seeks a sixty day extension of the current discovery cut-off date of July 12, 2011.
Good cause is required for modification of the Court's discovery and scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Good cause having been shown, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for modification of the discovery cut-off date is granted. The discovery cut-off date is September 12, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.