Lauretta Perkins v. Adesa US Auction, LLC et al.

W.D. Washington

Lauretta Perkins v. Adesa US Auction, LLC et al.

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided April 16, 2026·No. 2:24-cv-02097·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE LAURETTA PERKINS, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-02097-LK Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION v. REQUESTING DEPOSITION COSTS ADESA US AUCTION, LLC et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Lauretta Perkins’ Motion titled “Notice for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and for Deposition Costs.” Dkt. No. 44. Perkins was previously granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. No. 4, so the Court denies that request as moot and considers her request for deposition costs below. Perkins is suing Defendants ADESA US Auction LLC and Carvana for employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Dkt. No. 35 at 1. She is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. See Dkt. Nos. 4, 35. The parties are engaged in discovery. See Dkt. Nos. 40, 44. In the present motion, Perkins requests that the Court “authorize the taking of a deposition of Adesa US Auction LLC et al., at public expense” due to her “inability to pay the costs associated with this deposition.” Dkt. No. 44 at 1. Although 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) allows an indigent plaintiff to initiate a civil rights lawsuit without paying the entire filing fee, Section 1915 “does not require or even authorize a court to

waive or shift the burden to pay the costs of litigation.” McLean v. Gutierrez, No. ED CV 15-275- RGK (SP), 2018 WL 11579906, *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2018); see also Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211–12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (expenditure of public funds on behalf of indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress); Niles v. Aung, No. 2:22-CV-1832 TLN AC P, 2025 WL 842777, *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2025) (pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis remains “responsible for setting up the deposition, including setting the date, time, and location of the deposition, arranging for a court reporter, and paying any fees for the court reporter’s services and the transcription of the deposition”), report and recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 1446036 (E.D. Cal. May 20, 2025). Therefore, Perkins’ motion, Dkt. No. 44, is DENIED.

Dated this 16th day of April, 2026. A Lauren King United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE LAURETTA PERKINS, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-02097-LK Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION v. REQUESTING DEPOSITION COSTS ADESA US AUCTION, LLC et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Lauretta Perkins’ Motion titled “Notice for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and for Deposition Costs.” Dkt. No. 44. Perkins was previously granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. No. 4, so the Court denies that request as moot and considers her request for deposition costs below. Perkins is suing Defendants ADESA US Auction LLC and Carvana for employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Dkt. No. 35 at 1. She is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. See Dkt. Nos. 4, 35. The parties are engaged in discovery. See Dkt. Nos. 40, 44. In the present motion, Perkins requests that the Court “authorize the taking of a deposition of Adesa US Auction LLC et al., at public expense” due to her “inability to pay the costs associated with this deposition.” Dkt. No. 44 at 1. Although 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) allows an indigent plaintiff to initiate a civil rights lawsuit without paying the entire filing fee, Section 1915 “does not require or even authorize a court to

waive or shift the burden to pay the costs of litigation.” McLean v. Gutierrez, No. ED CV 15-275- RGK (SP), 2018 WL 11579906, *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2018); see also Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211–12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (expenditure of public funds on behalf of indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress); Niles v. Aung, No. 2:22-CV-1832 TLN AC P, 2025 WL 842777, *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2025) (pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis remains “responsible for setting up the deposition, including setting the date, time, and location of the deposition, arranging for a court reporter, and paying any fees for the court reporter’s services and the transcription of the deposition”), report and recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 1446036 (E.D. Cal. May 20, 2025). Therefore, Perkins’ motion, Dkt. No. 44, is DENIED.

Dated this 16th day of April, 2026. A Lauren King United States District Judge

Lauretta Perkins v. Adesa US Auction, LLC et al., (W.D. Wash. 2026).

Pincite

Lauretta Perkins v. Adesa US Auction, LLC et al. (Lauretta Perkins v. Adesa US Auction, LLC et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related