Ivy v. Bolin

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Rashad Ramon Ivy, Case No. 24-cv-3425 (LMP/DJF)

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

William Bolin, et al.,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Rashad Ramon Ivy’s June 24, 2025 Letter (“Request”) (ECF No. 77) asking the Court to appoint a stenographer for depositions Mr. Ivy wishes to take. Mr. Ivy makes this request because the transcription service companies he has contacted categorically refuse to work with pro se litigants. (Id.) Although the Court sympathizes with Mr. Ivy’s predicament, litigants do not have a “right to affirmative assistance from the court in conducting discovery or securing a court reporter.” Legrand v. Carpenter, No. 4:22-CV-4168 (CCT), 2025 WL 276294, at *4 (D.S.D. Jan. 23, 2025) (quoting Baker v. Immanuel Med. Ctr., No. 8:06-CV-655 (WKU), 2007 WL 2914547, at *2 (D. Neb. Oct. 3, 2007)). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also state that the party who notices a deposition must pay for the recording costs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3)(A). The Court therefore cannot require Defendants to shoulder these expenses. For these reasons, the Court denies Mr. Ivy’s Request.1

1 To the extent that Mr. Ivy does not have the financial resources necessary to secure court reporting services for oral depositions, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establish alternative means of collecting discovery from Defendants and witnesses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 31 (Depositions by Written Questions); Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 (Interrogatories to Parties); Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 (Requests for Admission). ORDER Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings here, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Rashad Ramon Ivy’s Request (ECF No. 77) is DENIED.

Dated: June 30, 2025 s/ Dulce J. Foster DULCE J. FOSTER United States Magistrate Judge