Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01500/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01500-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

17-cv-01500-MMA-JLB

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID LEMUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. GUTIERREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-01500-MMA-JLB

ORDER: (1) DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL, AND (2) SETTING 

STATUS CONFERENCE 

[ECF Nos. 36, 38]

On July 19, 2018, Plaintiff David Lemus filed a Motion to Compel Discovery 

requesting Defendants be ordered to provide him with materials relating to the deposition 

of Rickey Richard Cruz, Plaintiff’s cellmate who was present at the time of the incident at 

issue in this case. (ECF No. 36.) On August 1, 2018, Defendants filed a response to 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel indicating that the parties had met and conferred on Plaintiff’s 

request. (ECF No. 38.) Although Defendants did not agree to provide Plaintiff with a copy 

of Mr. Cruz’s deposition transcript, they agreed to postpone Plaintiff’s deposition so that 

he could obtain the deposition transcript from the court reporter. (Id. at 1-2.) Defendants 

also requested a thirty day extension of the deadlines to complete discovery and file pretrial 

motions so that Plaintiff could obtain Mr. Cruz’s deposition transcript and the parties could 

move forward with Plaintiff’s deposition. (Id. at 4.)

Case 3:17-cv-01500-MMA-JLB Document 39 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17-cv-01500-MMA-JLB

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

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 36) is DENIED. Plaintiff appears to seek 

an order compelling Defendants to provide him with a free copy of Mr. Cruz’s deposition 

transcript. (Id.) A person who transcribes a deposition is required to provide a copy of the 

transcript to any party or the deponent only when paid reasonable charges therefor. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3). Plaintiff cannot compel Defendants to provide him with a free copy of 

the deposition transcript. See Brown v. Castillo, No. CV-F-02-6018 AWI DLB P, 2006 

WL 1408452, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2006) (“Neither this court nor defendant can 

provide a copy [of the deposition transcript] to plaintiff without the authorization of the 

court reporter.”); Davis v. Molina, No. 1:14-cv-1554-BAM (PC), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

159176, *1-3 (E.D. Cal., Sept. 27, 2017). Nor may the Court provide Plaintiff with 

financial assistance to obtain the deposition transcript. Although Plaintiff was granted 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case (ECF No. 3), it is well established that “the 

expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when 

authorized by Congress.” Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.3d 210, 211 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting 

United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976)). The expenditure of public funds 

for deposition transcripts is not authorized by the in forma pauperis statute or any other 

statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Boyd v. Etchebehere, No. 11301966LJOSABPC, 2017 WL 

1632887, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 1, 2017) (“[T]he law does not require that Plaintiff be 

provided a free copy of his deposition transcript unless he has paid for a copy and 

Defendant is under no obligation to provide Plaintiff with a free copy of the transcript.”). 

If Plaintiff desires a copy of Mr. Cruz’s deposition transcript, he must request it from the 

court reporter and pay the reasonable charges for the transcript. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

30(f)(3); Hutchinson v. Cal. Prison Indus. Auth., No. 4:13-cv-04635-CW (LB), 2015 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 97001, at *8 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2015) (“the rule generally provides that a 

party must obtain a copy from the court reporter, who must provide it when paid reasonable 

charges”). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a telephonic Status Conference regarding 

Defendants’ Ex Parte Motion to Extend Discovery and Motion Cutoff Dates (ECF No. 38) 

Case 3:17-cv-01500-MMA-JLB Document 39 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17-cv-01500-MMA-JLB

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

is hereby SET for August 7, 2018 at 11:30 AM before Judge Burkhardt. Counsel for 

Defendants shall assist in coordinating the arrangements for Plaintiff’s telephonic 

appearance at the Conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-01500-MMA-JLB Document 39 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3