Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00203/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00203-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHARLES G. REECE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

D.K. SISTO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:10-cv-0203-JAM-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a motion requesting that defendants be sanctioned for denying him a 

copy of his deposition transcript and a motion to compel further responses to his requests for 

production of documents. For the reasons that follow, the motions are denied. 

Plaintiff claims that “[d]efendants have knowingly violated the discovery rules and 

Plaintiff[’s] rights by denying him a copy of the [deposition transcript].” See ECF No. 76 at 2. 

Defendants, however, are not obligated to provide plaintiff with a free copy of the deposition 

transcript. Pursuant to Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff must first pay for 

a copy of the deposition transcript, and then obtain it from the officer before whom the deposition 

was taken. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3). Although plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, that statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for deposition 

transcripts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per 

Case 2:10-cv-00203-JAM-EFB Document 84 Filed 01/17/17 Page 1 of 4
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

curiam) (“‘[T]he expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only 

when authorized by Congress’”) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. MacCollom, 426 

U.S. 317, 321 (1976)). If plaintiff wishes to obtain a copy of his deposition transcript, he must 

follow the steps outlined in Rule 30. Because plaintiff fails to demonstrate any basis for sanctions 

against defendants, the motion is denied. 

Plaintiff also moves to compel further responses to all of his requests for production of 

documents, arguing generally, that defendants “failed to provide any of the requested documents 

[and] repeatedly stated they would not provide any documents.” ECF No. 77 at 2. Defendants 

opposed the motion. ECF No. 78. Plaintiff did not file a reply. 

As the moving party, plaintiff bears the burden of informing the court of (1) which 

discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, (2) which of defendants’ responses are 

disputed, (3) why he believes defendants’ responses are deficient, (4) why defendants’ objections 

are not justified, and (5) why the information he seeks through discovery is relevant to the 

prosecution of this action. See, e.g., Brooks v. Alameida, No. CIV S-03-2343 JAM EFB P, 2009 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9568, (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2009) (“Without knowing which responses plaintiff 

seeks to compel or on what grounds, the court cannot grant plaintiff’s motion”); Ellis v. Cambra, 

No. CIV 02-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109050 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008) 

(“Plaintiff must inform the court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to 

compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the court why the information sought is relevant 

and why Defendant's objections are not justified.”). 

Plaintiff served each defendant with 24 requests for production of documents. ECF No. 

77 at 90-103, 117-131. As to each request, defendants provided a response or an objection. Id. 

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to every one of his requests without explaining why 

any particular response is deficient or why any objection lacks merit. Plaintiff thus fails to carry 

his burden on his motion to compel. Moreover, the court has reviewed defendants’ responses and 

notes that the objections asserted are not boilerplate, but rather, tailored to the specific 

deficiencies in each request. For example, plaintiff repeatedly sought documents that would 

support various contentions of the defendants. Defendants’ responses explained that they had 

Case 2:10-cv-00203-JAM-EFB Document 84 Filed 01/17/17 Page 2 of 4
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 

3

never made the stated contentions and appropriately objected to those requests as argumentative. 

Other requests required responsive documents only if defendants had not made an “unqualified 

admission” in response to a specific request for admission. Where defendants had admitted the 

request at issue, they properly responded to the requests for production as inapplicable. There is 

also nothing facially deficient about defendants’ objections to other requests as equally available 

to plaintiff, overbroad, vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. Plaintiff’s motion fails to explain 

why any of these objections is not justified or to clarify his requests in ways that would allow 

defendants to respond. 

 In response to other requests, defendants stated that they could not provide the requested 

documents because the documents described do not exist. In contending that defendants “do not 

say they don’t have [the requested documents], they just refused to provide them,” plaintiff 

misstates the record. ECF No. 77 at 3. 

Defendants also responded to numerous requests by agreeing to produce certain 

photographs for plaintiff to view, but declining to produce the photographs for plaintiff to 

possess, citing “security reasons.” Plaintiff has not shown that his ability to view, but not keep, 

copies of the photos prevents him from prosecuting his case. Whether viewing the photos might 

provide further information on that question remains to be seen. But he has failed to establish a 

need to keep copies that outweighs the security issues raised by defendants if such photos were to 

remain in an inmate’s possession. Plaintiff does point out that the photographs referenced by 

defendants were previously provided to him and made part of the record in this case when 

defendants submitted them with a motion to dismiss in 2015. ECF No. 77 at 5; see also ECF No. 

60-4. However, plaintiff also states, without elaboration, that the photographs “are not what he is 

seeking” in response to his document requests. ECF No. 77 at 5. Thus, while plaintiff effectively 

undermines any purported security concerns with respect to the previously filed photographs, he 

nevertheless fails to show that any further responses should be compelled. Rather, his statement 

that he is not seeking copies of the photos that were previously submitted with a motion to 

dismiss indicates that he is attempting to obtain copies of other photos that, according to the 

defendants, would raise security concerns if plaintiff were allowed to keep them. Thus, he simply 

Case 2:10-cv-00203-JAM-EFB Document 84 Filed 01/17/17 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

has not demonstrated a need for copies of specific photographs or that such need outweighs the 

security concerns raised by defendants. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion requesting that defendants be sanctioned for denying him a copy of his 

deposition transcript (ECF No. 76) is denied. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to his requests for production of documents 

(ECF No. 77) is denied. 

DATED: January 17, 2017. 

Case 2:10-cv-00203-JAM-EFB Document 84 Filed 01/17/17 Page 4 of 4