Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00869/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00869-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

1

Docket No. 369, Filed October 4, 2006. 

2

Docket No. 373, Filed October 5, 2006.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES HENRY WASHBURN, JR.,

Appellant,

 v.

ALEX FAGAN, JR., et al.,

Appellees. /

No. C03-0869 MJJ

ORDER REQUIRING APPELLANT TO

DESIGNATE ENTIRE TRIAL

TRANSCRIPT FOR APPEAL AT

APPELLANT’S EXPENSE

Before the Court is Appellees Alex Fagan, Jr., et al., (“Appellees” or “Fagan, et al.”)

Administrative Motion for Order Requiring Appellant to Designate Entire Trial Transcript for

Appeal at Appellant’s Expense.1

 In response, Appellant, James Henry Washburn, Jr., (“Appellant”

or “Washburn”) filed with this Court a Certification that Defendant-Appellees’ Demand for

Supplementation of the Transcript Order is Unnecessary and Frivolous.2

 

Appellees’ argue that Appellant’s transcript designation was untimely and the issues

Appellant plans to raise on appeal require Appellant to order a complete trial transcript. Appellant

argues that the issues raised on appeal do not require reference to an entire transcript and, therefore,

Appellees’ request is unnecessary and frivolous. 

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure state that the trial transcript is a part of the record

on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 10(a)(2). The appellant shall serve the appellee with notice specifying

Case 3:03-cv-00869-MJJ Document 376 Filed 12/05/06 Page 1 of 3
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 3

 (Appellees’ Administrative Motion for Order Requiring Appellant to Designate Entire Trial Transcript for Appeal

at Appellant’s Expense, Exhibit D.) 

2

which portions of the transcript the appellant intends to order on appeal within 10 days of filing the

notice of appeal. Ninth Circuit Local Rules 10-3.1(a); Fed. R. App. P. 10(b). If the appellant fails to

order the full transcript, the appellee may serve upon the appellant, within 10 days, a request that the

appellant order the necessary additional portions of the transcript for the appeal. Ninth Circuit Rule

10-3.1(b). Upon request by the appellee, the appellant “shall” make arrangements to order the

additional portions requested unless appellant certifies with the district court that these additional

portions are unnecessary to the appeal and “explains why not.” Ninth Circuit Rule 10-3.1(f). If the

appellant intends to raise issues on appeal concerning findings or conclusions unsupported by the

evidence, the appellant must include all portions of the transcript relevant to that finding. Fed. R.

App. P. 10(b)(2). 

Here, it is undisputed that Appellant failed to file a timely notice specifying which portions

of the transcript Appellant intended to order on appeal. See Ninth Circuit Local Rules 10-3.1(a).

Notwithstanding that procedural deficiency, the Court will address the merits of both parties’

contentions. 

Appellant fails to adequately convince the Court why the entire record is unnecessary on

appeal. As Circuit Rule 10-3.1(f) states, it is Appellant’s duty to certify to this Court why the

portions of Appellees’ request are unnecessary to appeal. While Washburn argues that the entire

transcript might be unnecessary for his own arguments on appeal, he fails to foreclose the relevancy

that other portions of the transcript may have on Appellees’ rebuttal of those claims. See Ninth

Circuit Rule 10-3.1(f). Appellant fails to recognize that the remainder of the transcript might have

relevance to Appellees’ rebuttal claim. Without excluded portions of the transcript, Appellees may

be unable to rebut Appellant’s claims. Any portion of the transcript that Appellees need to point out

to contest Appellant’s arguments on appeal are relevant and necessary to the appeal. Fed. See R.

App. P. 10(b)(2). 

In viewing Appellant’s “issues to be raised on appeal”3

 and Appellees’ contentions, this

Court finds that some of Appellant’s issues on appeal relate to relevant information that could be

Case 3:03-cv-00869-MJJ Document 376 Filed 12/05/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

found in areas of the transcript that Appellant has not ordered. Thus, by requesting only portions of

the record, Appellant is denying Appellee a chance to rebut certain issues with other relevant

evidence from the transcript on appeal. Overall, it is important for the appellate court to have access

to the additional portions of the transcript in this appeal in making their determinations. See Jones v.

City of Santa Monica, 382 F.3d 1052, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004). It is Appellant’s duty to provide the

appellate court with such access and pay for costs incurred in the process. See Circuit Rule 10-3.1. 

CONCLUSION

As a result, the Court GRANTS Appellees’ Administrative Motion for Order Requiring

Appellant to Designate Entire Trial Transcript for Appeal at Appellant’s Expense. To the extent the

additional necessary portions of the transcript have already been designated by Appellees (See

Docket No. 374, filed October 12, 2006), Appellant shall bear the burden of such costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 05, 2006 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-00869-MJJ Document 376 Filed 12/05/06 Page 3 of 3