(PS) Ferreira da Silva v. Ross

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXANDRA FERREIRA DA SILVA, No. 2:21-cv-1208-DJC-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 HEIDI C. MORGAN 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 Plaintiff proceeds pro se and with limited purpose appointed counsel. (See ECF No. 77.) 19 Filing pro se, plaintiff filed a “Petition for Extension of Time to Review Deposition 20 Transcriptions, and [for] Complete Nullification of the First Deposition.” (ECF No. 88.) The 21 court previously determined plaintiff could bring this motion pro se and instructed plaintiff to re- 22 notice the motion under the procedure of Local Rule 230(b) with a hearing date before the 23 undersigned. (ECF No. 89.) Plaintiff has done so. (ECF No. 92.) The court now finds this matter 24 appropriate for decision without oral argument under Local Rule 230(g). Accordingly, the hearing 25 date is vacated. The motion is denied. 26 Under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, on request by the deponent before the 27 deposition has ended, the deponent may review the transcript or recording within thirty days after 28 being notified by the officer that the transcript is available. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 30(e)(1). Here, 1 | plaintiff has been afforded an opportunity to review the deposition transcript. To the extent 2 || plaintiffs motion requests a further extension of time to review deposition transcript, the motion 3 || is denied. Acting sua sponte, the court already granted plaintiff an extension of time to review the 4 | deposition transcript at issue. (ECF No. 89.) No further extension is shown to be warranted. 5 To the extent plaintiff requests complete annulment or nullification of the first deposition, 6 || plaintiff fails to show she is entitled to such relief. Plaintiff asserts that she was not provided 7 || access to a translator as requested, but the transcript of the deposition does not support her 8 || assertion that she requested a translator. Instead, the deposition transcript indicates plaintiff did 9 || not request a translator; rather, plaintiff stated she would proceed without a translator. 10 Plaintiff also asserts that the deposition transcript should be nullified because many 11 || personal questions unrelated to the matter in dispute were asked. Such an assertion provides no 12 | basis for nullification of the deposition. Plaintiff has not demonstrated any violation of Federal 13 | Rule of Civil Procedure 30, and the court finds no basis for nullifying plaintiffs first deposition. 14 | See, e.g., Scott v. Chau, No. 1:19-CV-01079-KES-HBK-PC, 2024 WL 1312392, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 15 || Mar. 27, 2024) (citing collected cases denying requests to nullify or strike depositions for alleged 16 || non-compliance with Rule 30(e) and noting that even a lack of an opportunity to review a 17 || deposition transcript would not warrant nullifying the deposition). 18 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 19 1. The hearing date of 12/11/24 is VACATED. 20 2. Plaintiffs motion for an extension of time and to nullify the first deposition (ECF 21 Nos. 88, 92) is DENIED. 22 || Dated: December 3, 2024 / a8 } if | / p , Si 8 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 |g, terr21ev1208.mot.depo 27 28