Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00720/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00720-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK BURDETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICER

RAMON REYNOSO, ET AL.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

Case No. C-06-00720 JCS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST

REGARDING TRANSCRIPTS

DESIGNATED BY DEFENDANTS FOR

APPEAL [Docket No. 199]

Plaintiff has filed an administrative request pursuant to Circuit Rules 7-11 and 10-3.1(d) and

(f) entitled “Plaintiff-Appellant’s Amended Certification that the Portions of the Transcript on

Appeal Designated by Defendant-Appellees Are Unnecessary” (hereinafter, “the Administrative

Request”). Under Circuit Rule 10-3.1(d) and (f), an appellant is required to pay for all portions of the

transcript designated by both parties as necessary for the appeal unless the appellant certifies that the

portions designated by the appellee are unnecessary. In that case, the district court is required to

determine which party should pay for those portions of the transcript. 

Here, Plaintiff has certified that the transcripts for the Final Pretrial Conference, held

November 16, 2007, and for the hearing on jury instructions held December 11, 2007– which

Defendants have designated as necessary for the appeal – are not necessary for the appeal. 

Defendants filed an opposition arguing that these two hearings shed light on how the Court

separated the excessive force claim that was tried to the jury from the questions relating to the

lawfulness of the arrest addressed on summary judgment. Consequently, Defendants argue, these

Case 3:06-cv-00720-JCS Document 204 Filed 04/16/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

transcripts are relevant to Plaintiff’s assertion, on appeal, that he is entitled to a new trial because the

summary judgment ruling “artificially truncated” the case and confused the jury.

The Court agrees with Defendants that these transcripts are necessary for the appeal and

therefore Orders that the costs of the transcripts for the November 16, 2007 and December 11, 2007

hearings be paid by Plaintiff-Appellant. Plaintiff’s Administrative Request is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2008

_____________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00720-JCS Document 204 Filed 04/16/08 Page 2 of 2