Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02348/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02348-22/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

GARRISON S. JOHNSON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CATE, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-02348-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO SUPPRESS DEPOSITION 

TRANSCRIPT

(ECF No. 87)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on an equal protection claim against Defendant 

Doran, Inmate Assignment Lieutenant at Kern Valley State Prison.

On July 11, 2014, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to take Plaintiff’s deposition 

by videoconference. The deposition took place on July 29, 2014.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s October 10, 2014 motion to suppress and exclude the 

deposition transcript. Defendant opposes the motion. Plaintiff has filed a reply to the 

opposition. The matter is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

A deposition transcript may be reviewed and changed as follows: 

On request by the deponent or a party before the deposition is completed, the 

Case 1:10-cv-02348-LJO-MJS Document 94 Filed 11/10/14 Page 1 of 4
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

deponent must be allowed 30 days after being notified by the officer that the 

transcript or recording is available in which:

(A) to review the transcript or recording; and

(B) if there are changes in form or substance, to sign a statement 

listing the changes and the reasons for making them.

The officer must note in the certificate prescribed by Rule 30(f)(1) whether a 

review was requested and, if so, must attach any changes the deponent 

makes during the 30-day period.

Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, the officer must retain the 

stenographic notes of a deposition taken stenographically or a copy of the 

recording of a deposition taken by another method. When paid reasonable 

charges, the officer must furnish a copy of the transcript or recording to any 

party or the deponent.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)(1)(2).

The requirements for objection and suppression of a deposition transcript are as 

follows: 

An objection to how the officer transcribed the testimony--or prepared, signed, 

certified, sealed, endorsed, sent, or otherwise dealt with the deposition--is 

waived unless a motion to suppress is made promptly after the error or 

irregularity becomes known or, with reasonable diligence, could have been 

known. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(4).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Arguments

Plaintiff claims that he was not furnished a copy of the deposition transcript to review 

and make corrections and changes. He suggests that without such corrections and 

changes his responses to compound questions are prejudicial.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff is not entitled to a free copy of his deposition 

transcript. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3). Though proceeding in forma pauperis, Plaintiff must pay 

for a copy as required by Rule 30(f)(3).

Case 1:10-cv-02348-LJO-MJS Document 94 Filed 11/10/14 Page 2 of 4
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

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff did not, in any event, request a copy of the 

transcript for review and correction as required by Rule 30(e). Such a request is now 

untimely. Plaintiff has not shown any basis for relief from his failure to timely comply with 

Rule 30. He has not identified any basis for suppression.

Plaintiff replies that his failure to request the transcript was excusable under Rule 

60(b) because he reasonably believed the reporter would provide a transcript without his 

request as in the past. Plaintiff also contends he is entitled to a free copy of the transcript 

because he lacks funds to pay for it.

B. Analysis

The Court has discretion to deal with discovery questions. Pina v. Children’s Place,

740 F.3d 785, 790-91 (1st Cir. 2014). It finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated any basis 

to suppress his July 29, 2014, deposition transcript. Pre-filing review and correction of a

deposition transcript occurs only when requested before completion of the deposition. 

Plaintiff concedes he did not make such a request. (ECF No. 90 at 3-4.) Further, his 

suggestion that he will be prejudiced by responses to compound questions, to which he 

apparently did not object, is factually unsupported and speculative.

The procedural requirements of Rule 30 are “clear and mandatory”, EBC, Inc. v. 

Clark Bldg. Systems, Inc., 618 F.3d 253, 265 (3d Cir. 2010), and “an absolute prerequisite 

to amending or correcting a deposition”. Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 232 F.R.D. 

491, 494, (E.D. Pa. 2006); see also Blackthorne v. Posner, 883 F.Supp. 1443, 1454 (D.Or. 

1995) (deponent’s errata sheet rejected where review of transcript not requested before its 

completion).

Plaintiff does not demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” for relief from the 

requirements of Rule 30. See e.g., Bernstein v. Brenner, 51 F.R.D. 9, 11 (D.D.C. 1970)

(relief from signing requirement granted where deponent is dead). Although Plaintiff is not 

Case 1:10-cv-02348-LJO-MJS Document 94 Filed 11/10/14 Page 3 of 4
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

4

required to litigate this case with the skill of an attorney, he is required to comply with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. His asserted belief the reporter would provide the 

transcript without his requesting it is directly contrary to the express language of Rule 30 

and not a basis for relief.

Rule 60(b), which provides grounds for relief from a final judgment, order, or 

proceeding, is not, as Plaintiff suggests, a basis for relief from rule 30 noncompliance. Rule 

60 does not apply to the facts before the Court. 

Plaintiff, having shown no basis for objecting to the deposition, may not suppress the 

transcript. Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(4). Nothing before the Court suggests an error or 

irregularity as to how the deposition officer transcribed and prepared the testimony. 

III. ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s October 10, 2014 motion to suppress and exclude 

the transcript of his July 29, 2014 deposition (ECF No. 87) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-02348-LJO-MJS Document 94 Filed 11/10/14 Page 4 of 4