Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05892/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05892-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES GARRETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O RICHHI,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-5892-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

SEND DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL COPIES OF

DOCUMENTS 37-39 & 41-42

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR A FREE COPY OF HIS DEPOSITION

TRANSCRIPT

(Doc. 37)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT’S

COUNSEL TO COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY

WITH PLAINTIFF CONCERNING REVIEW

OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT

(Doc. 42)

Plaintiff James Garrett (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 1, 2005, plaintiff filed

a motion seeking a copy of the transcript of his deposition held on July 22, 2005. In the

accompanying memorandum, plaintiff asserts that because the institution is on lock-down, he has

been unable to secure copies of his filings to serve defendant’s counsel. On September 12, 2005,

plaintiff filed a supplement to his motion, which appears to involve review of the transcript.

With respect to copies, plaintiff is required to serve a copy of all filings on defendant’s

counsel. Pursuant to the CDC memo submitted by plaintiff, plaintiff should be able to obtain at least

two copies of each original document. Plaintiff should submit the original document to the court for

Case 1:03-cv-05892-AWI-SMS Document 43 Filed 09/14/05 Page 1 of 3
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

filing, serve one copy on defendant’s counsel, and keep one copy for his records. Plaintiff need not

be concerned with sending any copies to the court besides the original sent for filing. Plaintiff’s

filings will not be stricken from the record and plaintiff will not otherwise be penalized for failing

to submit the original plus one copy to the court. When plaintiff obtains copies of his documents,

service of a copy on defendant’s counsel must be plaintiff’s first priority. Service on defendant’s

counsel is mandatory and may not be excused. 

In this instance, the court will direct the Clerk’s Office to send copies of plaintiff’s recent

filings to defendant’s counsel, as it is not clear which filings were served and which were not. If

plaintiff’s access to regular photocopy services is limited due to an institutional lock-down, plaintiff

may make a handwritten copy to serve on defendant’s counsel. The court cannot and will not again

serve plaintiff’s filings for him. 

Turning to the deposition transcript, the officer before whom the deposition was conducted

must furnish a copy of the deposition to plaintiff upon payment of reasonable charges. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 30(f)(2). However, there is no provision under the Federal Rules or the Local Rules for free

copies of deposition transcripts. Further, the expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent

litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress. See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir.

1989) (citations omitted). The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public

funds for the purpose sought by plaintiff in the instant motion. Accordingly, to the extent that

plaintiff is seeking a free copy of the transcript for his own records, his motion must be denied.

Plaintiff’s filing of September 12, 2005, appears to involve review of the transcript rather

than the obtainment of a free copy. Rule 30 provides that “[i]f requested by the deponent or a party

before completion of the deposition, the deponent shall have 30 days after being notified by the

officer that the transcript . . . is available in which to review the transcript . . . and, if there are

changes in form or substance, to sign a statement reciting such changes and the reasons given by the

deponent for making them.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e). Plaintiff is entitled to review the transcript free

of charge, subject to the provisions of Rule 30. 

Plaintiff indicates that he was informed by letter that he must review the transcript at the

court reporter’s office in Salinas. Given that plaintiff is incarcerated, it is extremely unlikely that

Case 1:03-cv-05892-AWI-SMS Document 43 Filed 09/14/05 Page 2 of 3
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

plaintiff will be able to do so. The court is unaware if there is a standard protocol, but in other cases

before this court, the transcript has been sent to the Litigation Office and the inmate was provided

with the opportunity to review the transcript at the prison. 

Although neither party is precluded form seeking further assistance of the court if necessary,

the court believes this issue can be resolved between the parties and the litigation coordinator

without further involvement of the court at this time. To that end, defendant’s counsel is directed

to contact plaintiff, and the litigation coordinator if necessary, in an effort to facilitate a review of

the transcript and resolve this issue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)(2).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send defendant’s counsel copies of court document numbers

37, 38, 39, 41, and 42;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a free copy of his deposition transcript, filed August 1, 2005,

is DENIED; and

3. Defendant’s counsel shall contact plaintiff in an effort to facilitate a review of the

transcript, subject to the provision of Rule 30(e)(2). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05892-AWI-SMS Document 43 Filed 09/14/05 Page 3 of 3