(PC) Torres v. Patel
This text of (PC) Torres v. Patel ((PC) Torres v. Patel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 MIGUEL TORRES., ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-00188-LJO-SAB (PC) 10 ) Plaintiff, ) 11 ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO v. ) COMPEL 12 ) ISMAIL PATEL, et.al., [ECF No. 47] 13 ) Defendants. ) ) 14 ) 15 )
17 Plaintiff Miguel Torres is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed on April 23, 2020. (ECF No. 20 23.) Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to provide him a free copy of his deposition transcript. 21 Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. 22 Defendants are not required to provide Plaintiff with a copy of his deposition transcript. See 23 Boston v. Garcia, No. 2:10-cv-1782 KJM DAD P, 2013 WL 1165062, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013) 24 (denying plaintiff’s request that the court order defendants to provide him with a copy of his 25 deposition transcript). Moreover, Plaintiff cannot obtain a copy of his deposition transcript free of 26 charge through a request for production. See Joseph v. Parciasepe, No. 2:14-cv-0414 GEB ACP, 2016 27 WL 2743448, at *4 (E.D. May, 11, 2016) (denying motion to compel production of a free copy of a 28 deposition transcript). Furthermore, although Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, “ ‘the WAS 4.10 ° UV LOOUINYINE SGN MVEUPTTOTI Sto PIR eee OY eve
1 || expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by 2 || Congress.’ ” Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. MacCollom 3 |]426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976). The expenditure of public funds for deposition transcripts is not authorizec 4 || by the in forma pauperis statute or any other statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Pursuant to Federal Rule 5 || of Civil Procedure 30, a party may obtain a copy of the deposition transcript upon reasonable paymer 6 ||of fees from the officer before whom the deposition was taken—a court reporter or deposition office 7 || See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3); Clairborne v. Battery, No. CIV S-06-2919 FCD EFB, 2009 WL 530352, 8 || at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2009) (denying plaintiff's request for a court order directing the defendant to 9 || provide him with a copy of his deposition transcript); Brown v. Castillo, No. CV F-02-6018 AWI 10 || DLB, 2006 WL 1408452, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2006) (same). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to 11 || compel Defendants to provide him a free copy of the deposition transcript is DENIED. 12 13 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 (ee 14 || Dated: _ June 26, 2020 OF 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
(PC) Torres v. Patel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-torres-v-patel-caed-2020.