(PC) Fairfield v. Corpuz ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELISSA FAIRFIELD, Case No. 1:19-cv-00632-DAD-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEPOSE DEFENDANTS 13 v. ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 14 A. KHOO, I. SINGH, FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 15 Defendants. ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S DOCUMENT 16 REQUESTS 17 (Doc. No. 97) 18 19 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s pleading titled “Motion to Set Up Deposition for 20 Defendants and Request for Production of Documents” filed on July 11, 2022. (Doc. No. 97). 21 Defendants did not respond to the motion and the time to do so has expired so the motion is 22 deemed unopposed. See Local Rule 230(c). Plaintiff proceeds in this § 1983 action pro se and in 23 forma pauperis. (See docket). 24 Pointing to Rule 37(b)(1), Plaintiff notes depositions may be done by remote means and 25 the parties may stipulate to conduct depositions but states he1 “does not have the skill set of 26 knowing how to initiate the deposition with the facility.” (Doc. No. 97 at 1). Plaintiff also 27 1 Plaintiff is a transgendered male who prefers the use of male pronouns. (Doc. No. 13 at 32). 28 1 includes a Request for Production of Documents in which he asks that Defendants produce: (1) all 2 statements, declarations, or affidavits, you have obtained from anyone that mention or reference 3 or support your innocence of the allegations against Defendant Dr. Khoo and Defendant Dr. I 4 Singh; and (2) all documents that support your defense with Defendants Dr. Khoo and Dr. Singh. 5 (Id. at 2). Liberally construed, as the Court is required to do for pro se litigants, it appears 6 Plaintiff wishes to depose certain witnesses and to propound certain discovery requests on 7 Defendants in connection with the instant § 1983 action. (See generally Doc. No. 97). 8 Turning first to Plaintiff’s request for depositions, while inmates have a constitutional 9 right of access to the courts an inmate’s constitutional right of access to the courts does not 10 impose “affirmative obligations on the States to finance and support prisoner litigation.” Lewis v. 11 Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 384 (1996). In forma pauperis status does not entitle a plaintiff to a waiver 12 of costs associated with depositions and other costs required to litigate a claim. Love v. Brewer, 13 2021 WL 1022702, *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2021); see also Tedder v. Odel, F.2d 210, 211-212 14 (9th Cir. 1989)(holding that 28 U.S.C § 1915 does not authorize a waiver of witness fees that are 15 tendered with subpoenas). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the party that is taking 16 the deposition to bear the costs of the recording. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3). 17 If Plaintiff desires to depose the Defendants, then Plaintiff must pay the costs for 18 recording the Defendants’ depositions as required by Rule 30(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil 19 Procedure. As ruled by the United States Supreme Court in Lewis v. Casey, the Ninth Circuit 20 Court of Appeals in Tedder, and this Court in Love, Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status does not 21 authorize the waiver of any fees associated with recording Defendants’ depositions. Admittedly, 22 Plaintiff’s current incarceration and in forma pauperis status may limit his ability to conduct 23 depositions, but he can obtain the information he seeks through other means, such as, 24 propounding Interrogatories, which are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 or Requests for 25 Admission, which are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 36. The Court this same day in a separate 26 order granted Plaintiff a thirty-day extension of time within which to propound additional 27 discovery on Defendants, if necessary. 28 Regarding the document requests, discovery is not filed with the court unless a party 1 | becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief with the court under the Federal Rules of 2 | Civil Procedure. See also Local Rule 250.3 (E.D. Cal. 2022)(noting requests for production shall 3 | not filed unless and until there is a proceeding in which the request, response, or proof of service 4 | is at issue). Thus, to the extent Plaintiff intended to file his requests for production of documents, 5 | the Court strikes the discovery. The Court, however, will construe the discovery request as being 6 | served upon Defendants and require Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's request for production of 7 | documents if they have not already done so. 8 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 9 1. Plaintiffs motion (Doc. No. 97) is DENIED to the extent he seeks the Court’s 10 | assistance in deposing Defendants. 11 2. The Court strikes Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents (Doc. No. 97). 12 3. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents if they 13 | have not already done so. 14 ' | Dated: _ August 24, 2022 Mile. Wh. foareh Zaskth 16 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28