Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00360/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00360-16/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY TABAREZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0360 LKK EFB P

vs.

DIANA BUTLER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On April 23, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for an order directing defendants to

provide him a copy of the transcript of his May 26, 2006, deposition. On May 14, 2007, plaintiff

filed a motion for an order directing defendants to provide him with a transcript of the April 26,

2007, deposition and to modify the schedule made January 27, 2006, to permit plaintiff to obtain

discovery. This order addresses both motions.

Regarding transcripts, the officer before whom a deposition is taken must retain

stenographic notes of the proceedings or a copy of the recording of a deposition taken by a

different method. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(2). That officer must provide a copy thereof to any party

or to the deponent upon payment of reasonable charges therefor. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(2). The

court cannot order defendants to provide plaintiff a copy of the transcript of the deposition

Case 2:04-cv-00360-LKK -KJN Document 116 Filed 07/02/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

proceedings. Plaintiff must obtain it from the officer before whom the deposition was taken

pursuant to Rule 30(f)(2). Although plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the

expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by

Congress. Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989). The in forma pauperis statute does not

authorize the expenditure of public funds in this instance. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Turning to plaintiff’s request to modify the schedule, the court finds this also is without

merit. He seeks an order extending the time for discovery so that defendants can comply with

any order this court makes directing defendants to provide a transcript of his deposition. As

explained above, the court cannot make such an order. Plaintiff also seeks an order extending

the time for him to file a motion to compel responses to his requests for production of any and all

video tapes or digital video discs of the April 8, 2002, riot. A schedule may be modified upon a

showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Good cause exists when the moving party

demonstrates he cannot meet the deadline despite exercising due diligence. Johnson v.

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Pursuant to the January 27,

2006, scheduling order discovery closed May 26, 2006. On May 17, 2006, plaintiff filed a

motion to compel production of these items and on June 1, 2006, defendants filed an opposition. 

However, it appears that the court has not resolved this motion. Plaintiff timely sought the

discovery that is the basis of his motion to modify the schedule. Therefore, modification is not

necessary. However, defendants have submitted evidence showing that a video of the April 8,

2002, riot was located at Folsom State Prison and that arrangements were made for plaintiff to

watch it on May 22, 2007.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 23, 2007, and May 14, 2007, motions

are denied.

Dated: July 2, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-00360-LKK -KJN Document 116 Filed 07/02/07 Page 2 of 2