Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00285/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00285-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lorne McCan
Respondent
United States of America
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

LORNE McCAN, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-285 REC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S

MOTION TO COMPEL PAYMENT OF

TRANSCRIPTS (Doc. 38)

On August 22, 2005, the court heard petitioner’s Motion to

Compel Payment of Transcripts. No opposition was filed by

respondent and respondent did not appear at oral argument.

Upon due consideration of the record and the arguments of

petitioner, the court grants this motion for the reasons set

forth herein.

Respondent appealed the Summons Enforcement Order to the

Ninth Circuit on June 13, 2005. 

Rule 10, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Rule

10.1, Ninth Circuit Rules, pertain to the record on appeal. Rule

Case 1:05-cv-00285-REC-DLB Document 51 Filed 09/07/05 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

2

10(a) and Rule 10-3.1(a) require that an appellant must order

from the reporter all portions of the transcript not already on

filed that the appellant believes necessary for the appeal or

file a certificate that no transcript will be ordered within ten

days after filing the notice of appeal. According to the United

States, respondent has not complied with these requirements. On

July 1, 2005, the United States designated the transcript of

proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Beck on May 6, 2005 as

necessary for the defense of the appeals pursuant to Rule 10-

3.1(d). Rule 10-3.1(d) provides that, within 30 days of the

filing of the notice of appeal, the appellant shall file a

transcript order in the district court, providing a copy to the

court reporter and the Court of Appeals and that 

In order the transcripts, appellant shall

either order all portions of the transcript

listed by both appellant and appellee or

certify to the district court pursuant to

subsection (f) of this rule that the portions

listed by appellee in the response to

appellant’s initial notice are unnecessary.

According to the United States, respondent failed to comply with

Rule 10-3.1(d), even after the United States served respondent

with a notice describing these rules and setting forth the dates

of compliance. 

The United States moves the court to order respondent to pay

for the May 6, 2005 transcript designated by the United States as

necessary to defend these appeals. Rule 10-3.1(f) provides in

pertinent part:

If appellee notifies appellant that

Case 1:05-cv-00285-REC-DLB Document 51 Filed 09/07/05 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

3

additional portions of the transcript are

required ..., appellant shall make

arrangements with the court reporter to pay

for these additional portions unless

appellant certifies that they are unnecessary

to the appeal and explains why not.

If such a certificate is filed in the

district court, with copies to the court

reporter and this court, the district court

shall determine which party shall pay for

which portions of the transcript ....

In moving for an order that respondent pay for the May 6, 2005

transcript, the United States notes that respondent did not

comply with Rule 10-3.1(f) by filing the certification that the

transcript ordered by the appellee was unnecessary. As the

United States argues:

The present appeal notices were mere pretexts

for delay. They were a transparent attempt

to frustrate the Orders instructing the

respondents-appellants to appear in Judge

Beck’s courtroom on June 17, 2005 and comply

with the IRS summonses. In that courtroom,

respondents-appellants could have asserted

their self-incrimination claims in response

to specific questions, and could have had

those claims tested before Judge Beck. But

respondents-appellants filed their appeal

notices June 13, 2005, just four days before

they were to appear, and on June 17 they

refused to appear, delaying their compliance

with the Orders. Their appeal notice on its

face belies any seriousness in the appeal,

for respondents-appellants, who are

individuals, there make the incredible

contention that this Court cannot force them

to testify ‘since the respondent is an

artificial entity.’ ... That the respondentsappellants refuse to perfect their appeals as

required by FRAP 10 and 9 Cir.R. 10-3.1, th

only confirms their appeals’ lack of

seriousness. Should respondents-appellants

refuse to comply with the compulsive order

sought here, their cavalier behavior toward

the requirements for perfecting an appeal may

Case 1:05-cv-00285-REC-DLB Document 51 Filed 09/07/05 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

4

help convince the Ninth Circuit to dismiss

their appeal.

Because respondent has not complied with the above-quoted

rules and has made no showing to this court that this motion

should not be granted, the court rules that this motion be

granted.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Payment of Transcripts is

granted.

2. Within ten (10) court days of the filing date of this

Order, respondent shall order and pay for the transcript of the

hearing held before Magistrate Judge Beck on May 6, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00285-REC-DLB Document 51 Filed 09/07/05 Page 4 of 4