Free Order on Motion to Compel - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Felipe J. Martinez, Plaintiff, vs. James Baird, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CIV 03-1729 PHX-RCB (LOA) ORDER

This matter arises on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce Plaintiff's December 2004 Deposition. (document # 97) Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendants to give Plaintiff a copy of the complete transcript of his December 20, 2004 deposition to assist Plaintiff in responding to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, who has been granted in forma pauperis status, claims that he cannot afford to purchase a copy of the transcript. He further argues that because Defendants introduced portions of Plaintiff's deposition "in evidence" in support of their dispositive motion, he is entitled to a complete copy of the deposition transcript. In the alternative, he requests that Defendants supplement their summary judgment to include the complete transcript. There is no statutory requirement for the government to provide a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis with copies of deposition transcripts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; 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.)
Case 2:03-cv-01729-RCB Document 99 Filed 12/16/2005 Page 1 of 3

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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(4), upon which Plaintiff relies, provides that "[i]f only part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party, an adverse party may require the offeror to introduce any other part which ought in fairness to be considered with the part introduced, and any party may introduce other parts." Defendants concede that they have submitted portions of Plaintiff's deposition transcript in support of their motion for summary judgment. However, they argue that Rule 32(a)(4) does not require Defendants to provide

Plaintiff with a complete transcript of his deposition. Rather than copying the entire transcript, Defendants have offered to schedule a time for Plaintiff to review his deposition transcript. After reviewing the transcript, Plaintiff can identify portions of the transcript that he wishes to cite in opposition to the motion for summary judgment and Defendants will provide Plaintiff with copies of those portions. (document # 94) Defendants have no obligation to provide Plaintiff with a complete copy of his deposition transcript. The procedure which Defendants propose comports with the spirit of Rule 32(a)(4) by permitting Plaintiff access to portions of his deposition transcript which are responsive to those cited by Defendants. After consideration of this matter, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. In view of Defendants' offer, however, the Court will order Defendants to permit Plaintiff to review his deposition transcript and to select portions for copying for use in his response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on or before January 5, 2006. Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with copies of the selected portions of his deposition transcript within five (5) days after Plaintiff's review of the transcript. Plaintiff may not select the entire deposition transcript for copying, rather he must select only those portions relevant to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce Plaintiff's December 2004 Deposition (document # 97) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before January 5, 2006, Defendants shall permit Plaintiff to review his deposition transcript and to select portions for copying for use in his response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants shall provide Plaintiff
Case 2:03-cv-01729-RCB -2Document 99 Filed 12/16/2005 Page 2 of 3

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

with copies of the selected portions of the deposition transcript within five (5) days after Plaintiff's review of the transcript. Plaintiff may not select the entire deposition transcript for copying, rather he must select only those portions relevant to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. DATED this 15th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:03-cv-01729-RCB

-3Document 99 Filed 12/16/2005

Page 3 of 3