Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01020/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01020-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

No. C 14-1020 RS (PR)

ORDER EXTENDING TIME

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 2/12/15*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

TYRONE YOUNGS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHERIFF JAMES, 

Defendant. /

No. C 14-1020 RS (PR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR A COPY OF A

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT;

ORDER EXTENDING TIME

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff has filed a (1) request for a copy of a complete transcript of his deposition

testimony (Docket No. 40), and (2) motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to

defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No 41). Plaintiff states that he has

received only a partial copy of the transcript. Defendant opposes the request for a transcript

because he provided plaintiff the pages used in the motion for summary judgment. He takes

no position on the motion to extend time. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s request for a copy of the deposition transcript is DENIED. To obtain a

copy of the transcript, a party or deponent must pay the recording officer for such a copy. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3). Defendant is under no obligation to pay for a copy (id.), and

Case 3:14-cv-01020-RS Document 43 Filed 02/12/15 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

No. C 14-1020 RS (PR)

2 ORDER EXTENDING TIME

there is no statutory requirement that the Court pay for a copy of a deposition transcript, even

for a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); cf. Tabron v.

Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 158–59 (3d Cir. 1993) (finding no abuse of discretion because there is no

authorization for the court to commit federal money to provide indigent litigants with copies

of deposition transcripts).

Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (Docket No. 41) is GRANTED. The

opposition, if any, shall be filed on or before April 1, 2015. No further extensions of time

will be granted. If plaintiff fails to file his opposition on or before April 1, 2015, the Court

will deem (1) plaintiff to have waived his right to file an opposition; and (2) the motion for

summary judgment submitted and ready for decision. If plaintiff files an opposition,

defendant’s reply shall be filed within 15 days after the opposition has been filed. The Clerk

shall terminate Docket No. 41. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 12, 2015 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01020-RS Document 43 Filed 02/12/15 Page 2 of 2