Opinion
CV-20-00562-TUC-RM
09-08-2022
Anthony Gregory LaPointe, Plaintiff, v. Gene Cocoa, Defendant.
ORDER
HONORABLE ROSEMARY MAUNLEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On May 9, 2022, Defendant Gene Cocoa filed a Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Failure to Exhaust Available Administrative Remedies. (Doc. 30.) Since that date, the Court has granted Plaintiff two extensions of his deadline for filing a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docs. 35, 38.)
Defendant's last name is listed on the docket as “Cocoa,” but his filings indicate the correct spelling is “Coca.”
Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Summary Judgment Motion and All Proceedings. (Doc. 41.) Plaintiff asks the Court to stay summary judgment briefing or grant an additional 30-day extension of deadlines to allow the parties to discuss discovery matters and settlement. (Id.) Plaintiff indicates the parties are preparing a Joint Settlement Status Report and that Plaintiff is attempting to obtain a copy of his deposition taken on June 2, 2022 but cannot afford to pay for a copy. (Id.)
The Court does not find that Plaintiff has shown good cause for staying summary judgment briefing or for a further, 30-day extension of his deadline for responding to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1) (court may extend deadline for good cause). Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment has already been pending for four months. The parties' upcoming deadline for filing a Joint Proposed Pretrial Order does not warrant an extension of Plaintiff's summary judgment response deadline, as there is no reason why Plaintiff cannot prepare the response while also working with Defendant to discuss settlement and prepare the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order. Furthermore, although the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff's economic circumstances, in forma pauperis status does not entitle a party to free copies of deposition transcripts. Brookins v. Hernandez, No. 1:17-cv-01675-AWI-SAB (PC), 2020 WL 949503, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2020). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(f)(3), the officer who conducted a deposition must “furnish a copy of the transcript . . . to any party or the deponent,” but only “[w]hen paid reasonable charges.”
Plaintiff's deadline for responding to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment expired on August 29, 2022. (See Doc. 38.) Because Plaintiff timely moved for an extension of the deadline, and to ensure that Plaintiff has an opportunity to file a response, the Court will grant Plaintiff one short, further extension of his deadline for filing a response. Plaintiff is warned that no further extensions of the response deadline will be granted.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Summary Judgment Motion and All Proceedings (Doc. 41) is denied. Plaintiff must respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 30) on or before September 16, 2022.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant may file a reply within fifteen (15) days of service of Plaintiff's response.