Lemberg v. San Francisco Opera Association

Opinion

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANN MARILYN LEMBERG, Case No. 17-cv-06641-MMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION TO ORDER PAYMENT OF TRANSCRIPTS 10 SAN FRANCISCO OPERA ASSOCIATION, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Before the Court is plaintiff’s “Motion to the Court to [O]rder [P]ayment of the 14 [T]ranscripts of the [H]earings for the Record on [A]ppeal,” filed February 26, 2021, by 15 which plaintiff seeks, at government expense, transcripts of “hearings” held in the above- 16 titled action. (See Doc. No. 149.) Defendant has not filed a response. Having read and 17 considered plaintiff’s motion, the Court rules as follows. 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), “[f]ees for transcripts furnished in [civil] 19 proceedings to persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis shall . . . be paid by the 20 United States if the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous 21 (but presents a substantial question).” See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). 22 Although, in the instant case, the Court, by order filed October 2, 2020, declined to 23 revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status for the purpose of appeal, plaintiff has failed to 24 provide a basis for why the transcripts she seeks are necessary for, or even relevant to, 25 her appeal, by which she challenges the Court’s “final orders and judgements . . . on 26 August 24, 2020 and September 4, 2020 respectively.” (See Doc. No. 144.) In those 27 orders, the Court granted defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement (see Doc. No. 122), 1 granted in part/denied in part defendant’s Request for Attorney’s Fees (see Doc. Nos. 2 122, 138), all of which matters were resolved on the parties’ written submissions, without 3 || ahearing. Indeed, the only reported proceedings in the above-titled action were two 4 || case management conferences, held on February 7, 2020, and May 29, 2020, 5 respectively, which took place well before the Court issued the above-referenced orders 6 || and did not address any of the issues resolved therein. 7 Under such circumstances, plaintiff fails to show she is entitled to obtain 8 || transcripts at government expense. See Volis v. HACLA, No. LA CV 13-01397 MMM 9 || (SPx), 2014 WL 12696752, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (denying plaintiffs motion for 10 || production of transcripts at government expense under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) where plaintiff 11 “failed to demonstrate that transcripts are necessary to resolve the[] issues [on appeal]”); g 12 || Westbrook v. Boy Scouts of Am., No. 10 C 4161, 2013 WL 2936488, at *4 (N.D. Ill. 2013) s 13 || (same). 14 Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

tpafz.nW CL 17 || Dated: March 5, 2021 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28