Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-00575/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-00575-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDGARDO LOYOLA,

Plaintiff, No. C 09-0575 PJH

v. ORDER

JOHN E. POTTER,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

At the April 7, 2010 hearing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court

granted plaintiff Edgardo Loyola’s request to review the original transcript of his deposition.

Plaintiff claims that the copy of the transcript that he received from defendant differs from

the original. The court allowed plaintiff one hour to review the original in the courtroom

following the hearing, and ordered him to submit a statement within one week detailing any

differences between the original and the copy.

On April 14, 2010, the day his statement was due, plaintiff filed a request for

additional time to review the original transcript, claiming that he “did not have time to read it

carefully because it is 188 pages long” and he has “difficulty with English.” The request is

DENIED. Plaintiff was given an opportunity to review the transcript, and the court is not

required to compel the further attendance of defendant’s counsel, plus the required court

officers, so that plaintiff can read all 188 pages of the original. Plaintiff was provided with a

copy of the transcript by counsel for the defendant, and she has certified that it is a true

and correct copy of the original.

Case 4:09-cv-00575-PJH Document 57 Filed 04/15/10 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

However, if plaintiff is still persuaded that there are differences between the original

and the copy, he shall submit a statement to the court, no later than April 26, 2010, listing

the exact citations (pages and lines in the deposition transcript) in defendant’s motion

which he believes are incorrect. If defendant wishes to respond to the statement, he may

do so no later than May 3, 2010. The court will compare the portions of the transcript

quoted in defendant’s motion with the same portions of the original, and will issue an order

as to the accuracy of the copy. The court will not review the entire transcript, nor compare

the entire original to the entire copy.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-00575-PJH Document 57 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 2