Opinion
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05443-BHS-DWC
02-08-2016
MITCHELL LEE VARNELL, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel ("Motion"). Dkt. 26.
Plaintiff's Motion asks the Court to order Defendants to provide Plaintiff with discovery documents at Defendants' expense. Dkt. 26 Dkt. 26-1 (Affidavit in Support).
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1) requires the party upon whom the discovery request was served "to produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test or sample ..." the items that are deemed responsive to his request. Nothing in Rule 34 requires the producing party to bear the costs associated with the production.
The costs of discovery should be borne by the party requesting discovery and it is not Defendants' responsibility to provide Plaintiff with the resources necessary for him to litigate his case at Defendant's expense. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 384 (1996) (an inmate's constitutional right of access to the courts does not impose "an affirmative obligation on the states to finance and support prisoner litigation"); Manley v. Zimmer, 2013 WL 5978021, *3-4 (D. Nev. Nov. 8, 2013) (finding the expenses for the plaintiff's discovery should be borne by the plaintiff, and not the responsibility of the defendants).
Furthermore, although the Court granted plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, (Dkt. 3), the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, only waives the filing fee for an indigent prisoner's civil rights complaint, and it does not require the Court to order financing of the entire action or waiver of fees or expenses for discovery. Hadsell v. Comm'r Internal Revenue Serv., 107 F.3d 750, 752 (9th Cir. 1997); Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993); Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Thus, Plaintiff is financially responsible for all other costs of litigation including the cost of obtaining discovery documents.
Defendants provided Plaintiff with options to inspect the documents responsive to his discovery requests. Dkt. 27. The documents would be (1) made available for inspection and review by Plaintiff's representative; (2) copied at a rate of 10 cents per page in addition to postage costs; or (3) produced on a CD mailed to a third party representative. Dkt. 27 at 2, Exhibit 1 ¶ 3. Defendants also offered to provide up to 25 pages of documents free of charge, which could be double-sided and contain up to two pages per side. Id. Plaintiff has not taken advantage of the options afforded to him by Defendants and continues to request Defendants obtain his discovery documents at their own expense. Dkt. 28. Defendants' production and alternative options clearly comport with the requirements of Rule 34. Therefore, the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. 26) is denied.
Dated this 8th day of February, 2016.
/s/_________
David W. Christel
United States Magistrate Judge