Miller v. Rufion, et al
Filing
141
ORDER Re: Deposition Transcript, signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 6/14/2011. (Fahrney, E)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
GERALD L. MILLER, JR.
CDCR #C-92075
Plaintiff,
v.
12
O. RUFION; MOONGA, R.N.,
13
Defendants.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 08-1233 BTM (WMc)
ORDER RE: DEPOSITION
TRANSCRIPT
15
16
I. INTRODUCTION
17
On April 4, 2011, the Honorable Barry T. Moskowitz remanded the issue of Plaintiff’s deposition
18
transcript review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e) to Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr. [See
19
Doc. No. 129 at 6:2-3.] Specifically, Judge Moskowitz requested further fact-finding as to the issues of
20
whether Plaintiff “preserved his right to review his deposition transcript for an opportunity to provide a
21
statement of changes and, if so, whether he received proper notice of the availability of the transcript for that
22
purpose.” Id. at 5:22-28.
23
On April 5, 2011, Defendants filed a response to the April 4, 2011 Order setting forth as exhibits
24
documentation that Plaintiff indeed received and made changes to his deposition transcript on October 12,
25
2010. [See Exhs. A and B to Doc. No. 130.] On April 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s
26
response with an attached errata sheet as an exhibit to illustrate that all of the changes requested by Plaintiff
27
may not have been made or were made incorrectly. [Doc. No. 131.]
28
1
08-1233 BT M (W M c)
1
II. STANDARD
2
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a deponent to review and sign a deposition
3
transcript. Rule 30(e) provides an opportunity to do so upon the request of a deponent or party. Fed. R.
4
Civ. P. 30(e)(1)-(2). When review of the transcript is requested, the deponent may change or correct the
5
substance or form of the transcript, but must provide a signed statement listing the changes and the reasons
6
in support of those changes within 30 days of being notified of a completed transcript. Id.
7
III. DISCUSSION AND ORDER THEREON
8
Here, Plaintiff ‘s deposition was taken on September 23, 2010. After receiving a copy of the
9
deposition transcript from the court reporting service, Fivecoat & With, Plaintiff reviewed the transcript and
10
signed it with accompanying changes on October 12, 2010. See Doc. No. 130 at Exh. A. The Attorney
11
General’s office was notified of the changes on October 15, 2011. Id.
12
changes proposed by Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court finds the transcript changes requested by Plaintiff were
13
made within the 30-day time frame set forth in Rule 30(e) and therefore, were timely.
No objections were made to the
14
In his opposition, Plaintiff admits he received the opportunity to review and amend the deposition
15
transcript. He argues, however, that the corrections he requested were not made. See Doc. No. 131 at
16
1:24-27. After comparing the errata sheet submitted by Plaintiff with the pages of deposition transcript in
17
question, which were an exhibit to Defendants’ response, the Court finds the following:
18
- the change to page 8 at line 20 appears to incorrectly indicate “13 years” as opposed to the phrase
19
“15 years” which is the correction requested on Plaintiff’s errata sheet;
20
- the proposed change to page 13 at line 20 was not made because the name “Harris” still appears in
21
the deposition transcript;
22
- the requested change at page 14 on line 9 was not made because instead of the word “inmate”, the
23
moniker “Mr. H” appears in the deposition transcript
24
The Court could not determine whether the proposed changes to pages nine (9) and eleven (11) of the
25
deposition transcript were actually made because Defendants did not include pages nine (9) and eleven (11)
26
in its exhibit. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendants to direct the deposition officer to make all the
27
changes proposed by Plaintiff on his errata sheet as well as correct any typographical errors made with
28
2
08-1233 BT M (W M c)
1
respect to those proposed changes and thereafter provide certification that the proposed changes were
2
executed correctly.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 14, 2011
5
6
7
Hon. William McCurine, Jr.
U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
08-1233 BT M (W M c)
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
