United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT [ECF NO. 96]
Curtis Boyd is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to suppress the
deposition submitted by Defendants in support of their motion
for summary judgment, filed April 24, 2017. Defendants filed
an opposition on April 27, 2017. Because it is clear that
there is no basis under the law to suppress the use of
Plaintiff's deposition, the Court finds a reply
unnecessary and will not await the time for such filing.
motion, Plaintiff argues that he was not given the
opportunity to review the deposition transcript pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e)(1)(A), Defendants have
only submitted a partial portion of the transcript in support
of their motion for summary judgment, and requests sanctions
be imposed for Defendants continuous misconduct and
disobedience of the law. Plaintiff's motion must be
Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e) permits a deponent to make
changes to his deposition testimony “in form or
substance” provided the deponent (1) requests review of
the deposition to make corrections, (2) signs a statement
listing the changes and the reasons for making them, and (3)
submits changes within thirty days of receiving notice that
the transcript is available. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(e)(1)-(2).
order to properly object and suppress the deposition
transcript, Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
An objection to how the officer transcribed the testimony-or
prepared, signed, certified, sealed, endorsed, sent, or
otherwise dealt with the deposition-is waived unless a motion
to suppress is made promptly after the error or irregularity
becomes known or, with reasonable diligence, could have been
Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(4).
Plaintiff's claim that the deposition should be excluded
because he was not given an opportunity to review the
transcript is belied by the evidence in the record.
Defendants have submitted a declaration dated December 2,
2016 signed under penalty of perjury by Plaintiff stating
that he “read the foregoing [deposition]
transcript” and that his “testimony contained
[t]herein, as corrected, is true and correct.” (ECF No.
84-4 at p. 95.)
Plaintiff's claim that there are “certain errors
and irregularities” in the transcript is also belied by
the evidence in the record. (Pl.'s Mot. at p. 1, ECF No.
96.) Defendants have submitted five errata sheets containing
handwritten corrections by Plaintiff with line-page citations
after his review of the entire deposition transcript.
(See ECF No. 84-4 at pgs. 96-100.) Thus, there is no
showing of any basis to suppress the deposition transcript
for certain unidentified errors and irregularities in the
Plaintiff claims that he “was given a partial copy of
the deposition transcript, ” attached as Exhibit A to
the Declaration of Andrew Whisnand in support of the motion
for summary judgment. (Pl.'s Mot. at p. 1, ECF No. 96;
Decl. of A. Whisnand Supp. Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., Ex. A,
ECF No. 84-4 at pgs. 3-134.) Local Rule 133(j) does not
require Defendants to provide Plaintiff a copy of the entire
deposition if the entire deposition is submitted to the Court
in hard copy. Local Rule 133(j) provides as follows:
Before or upon the filing of a document making reference to a
deposition, counsel relying on the deposition shall ensure
that a courtesy hard copy of the entire deposition so relied
upon has been submitted to the Clerk for use in chambers.
Alternatively, counsel relying on a deposition may submit an
electronic copy of the deposition in lieu of the courtesy
paper copy to the email box of the Judge or Magistrate Judge
and concurrently email or otherwise transmit the deposition
to all other parties. Neither hard copy nor electronic copy
of the entire deposition will become part of the official
record of the action absent order of the Court. Pertinent
portions of the deposition intended to become part of the
official record shall be submitted as exhibits in support of
a motion or otherwise. See L.R.250.1(a).
provided the Court with a hard copy of Plaintiff's entire
deposition on December 8, 2016. (ECF No. 80.) Defendants also
attached the pertinent portions of Plaintiff's deposition
as Exhibit A to their motion for summary judgment which was
properly served on Plaintiff. (ECF No. 84.) Therefore,
Defendants have complied with the rules of this Court. In
addition, the law does not require that Plaintiff be provided
a free copy of his deposition transcript unless he has paid
for a copy and Defendant is under no obligation to provide
Plaintiff with a free copy of the transcript. Furthermore,
Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status does not authorize
the expenditure of public funds for deposition transcripts.
28 U.S.C. § 1915; Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210,
211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) ...