Summary
This United States District Court order denies a pro se plaintiff's request to appoint a stenographer for upcoming depositions. The court explains that litigants have no right to affirmative assistance from the court for discovery and that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 requires the noticing party to bear transcription costs. Instead, the court directs the plaintiff to utilize alternative discovery mechanisms such as written interrogatories or requests for admission.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a pro se litigant has a right to court-appointed stenographic assistance for depositions.
Holdings
- Litigants do not have a right to affirmative assistance from the court in conducting discovery or securing a court reporter; the request is denied.
Key quotations
“litigants do not have a “right to affirmative assistance from the court in conducting discovery or securing a court reporter.””
Factual background
Plaintiff Rashad Ramon Ivy, proceeding pro se, could not obtain a court reporter because transcription service companies refused to work with pro se litigants, and therefore requested the court to appoint a stenographer.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed pro se civil rights action and later submitted a request for the court to appoint a stenographer for depositions; the court denied the request.