Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05673/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05673-1/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

ALVIN RONNEL ROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GUERRERO,

Defendant.

 /

CV F 04 5673 OWW SMS P

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

(Doc. 31-1) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. 31-2) 

Alvin Ronnel Ross (“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 May 10, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce a Complete

Copy of his Deposition. Plaintiff also moves for an extension of time to oppose the pending

Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff indicates that he cannot dispute any of Defendants

assertions without having a complete copy of the deposition. 

In an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel issued December 20, 2004 (Court Doc. 

12), Plaintiff was informed that the Motion was not in compliance with Rule 37 (a) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Despite being informed of the requirements of filing a Motion to

Compel, Plaintiff again submits a Motion to Compel that does not contain a certification that

Case 1:04-cv-05673-OWW -SMS Document 32 Filed 05/13/05 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

Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with Defendants prior to filing his Motion to Compel. 

The court’s discovery and scheduling order issued June 15, 2004, stated specifically that

all discovery was to comply with all pertinent rules including Rules 5, 7, 11, 26, and 37 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 11-110, 7-130, 7-131, 7-132, 5-134, 5-135, 6-136,

43-140 and 78-230(m) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States Court. 

Rule 37(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a motion to

compel contain certification that the moving party has, in good faith, conferred or attempted to

confer with the party not making the disclosure in an effort to secure the disclosure without court

intervention. The Motion before the Court, however, contains no certification that plaintiff has

complied with the meet and confer requirement imposed by the rules. In addition, Plaintiff has

failed to timely file his Motion to Compel. 

On December 9, 2004, the Court extended the deadline to and including January 31,

2005, however, the extension applied only to “discovery pending as of ” December 9, 2004. As

of December 9, 2004, however, there was no discovery regarding Plaintiff’s obtaining a copy of

his deposition pending. Even so, the deadline for the completion of all discovery and the filing

of Motions to Compel expired on January 31, 2005, and thus, the submission of this Motion to

Compel is untimely. 

Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 5-135(b), all

pleadings filed with the Court must be served on the opposing party. Local Rule 5-135(b);

Fed.R.Civ.P. 5. The Court has examined the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants

on April 14, 2005, and the accompanying Exhibit A of which Plaintiff alleges is incomplete. The

copy of Exhibit A filed with the Court is also incomplete. However, the Court has noted that the

portions of the Motion that reference “Exhibit A” refer to those portions of the deposition that

were actually provided to both the Court and Plaintiff. It is likely that the deposition transcript is

voluminous and thus, Defendants have only provided those portions of the transcript that are

cited to in the Motion for Summary Judgment and are relevant to the resolution of the Motion. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is not entitled to a complete copy of the deposition under the service

requirements of Rule 5. 

Case 1:04-cv-05673-OWW -SMS Document 32 Filed 05/13/05 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

Pursuant to Rule 30(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[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 or recording is available in which to review the

transcript or recording 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. Pro. 30(e). 

Although this portion of Rule 30 authorizes the Plaintiff to review a copy of the deposition at his

request, it does not authorize him to photocopy or retain a copy of the transcript for his own

records and purposes. If plaintiff wishes to obtain a copy for his own records, he must pay for it,

pursuant to Rule 30(f)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED:

2. The Request for an Extension of time to file an Opposition to the Motion for

Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Opposition is DUE within thirty (30)

days of the date of service of this Order. 

No further extensions will be granted but upon a showing of good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05673-OWW -SMS Document 32 Filed 05/13/05 Page 3 of 3