Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01077/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01077-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
West Contra Costa Unified School District
Defendant
Fernando Yates
Plaintiff

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FERNANDO YATES,

Plaintiff,

v.

WEST CONTRA COSTA UNIFIED 

SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01077-MEJ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF 

DEPOSITION COSTS

Re: Dkt. No. 79

Pro per Plaintiff Fernando Yates (“Plaintiff”) filed a “Request . . . for the Court to Cover 

and/or Waive Costs Associated to Deposition of Defendant.” See Dkt. No. 79. In fact, Plaintiff 

does not seek to depose Defendant West Contra Costa Unified School District (the “District”), but 

three current or former employees of the District. Plaintiff requests the Court “cover and/or 

waive costs associated” with deposing nonparties Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources 

Kenneth Whitmore, Director of Human Resources Cheryl Cotton, and Principal David Luongo. 

Id.

Plaintiff’s request for the Court to pay his deposition fees is based on his in forma pauperis 

(“IFP”) status. See id. While the IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, allows a federal court to waive 

the filing fee that would cause hardship and prevent an indigent litigant from accessing the courts, 

“it does not require the court to order financing of the entire action or waiver of fees or expenses 

for witnesses.” Merchant v. Lopez, 2010 WL 1948922, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 12, 2010) (citing 

Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The magistrate judge correctly ruled [the IFP 

statute] does not waive payment of fees or expenses for witnesses” plaintiff wanted to call at trial); 

Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211–12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (“Although the plain language 

[of the IFP statute] provides for service of process for an indigent’s witnesses, it does not waive 

Case 3:16-cv-01077-MEJ Document 93 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

payment of fees or expenses for those witnesses. The Supreme Court has declared that ‘the 

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

Congress.’ . . . We join the Third, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits in finding no such 

authorization. . . .”)). “[N]othing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Ninth Circuit cases 

authorize or require the courts to finance or subsidize fees and costs associated with prosecuting a 

civil action.” King v. Calderwood, 2015 WL 7428552, at *1 (D. Nev. Nov. 20, 2015) (citing

Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1991) (right of access to courts does not include 

unlimited free photocopying)).

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to waive and/or cover the cost of deposing these 

three witnesses. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2017

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01077-MEJ Document 93 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 2