United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, District Judge.
The plaintiff's motion for leave to depose defendants has been considered. He seeks to take depositions for the purpose of learning additional facts and obtaining evidence relevant to the remaining claim and to see if admissions as to facts can be obtained. He alleges that he is indigent. Presumably he has no means to pay for the depositions.
The plaintiff has not explained why his written interrogatories were insufficient to obtain needed information or why he could not have served requests for admissions under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The defendants have objected to the motion to the extent the plaintiff seeks to take depositions at public expense. The Court agrees that there are no public funds with which to subsidize the plaintiff's discovery costs. See Wheeler v. Talbot, No. 12-cv-2281, 2014 WL 321841, *1 (C.D.Ill. Jan. 29, 2014) ("[t]his court has no authority to finance or pay for a party's discovery expenses even though the party has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §1915(a).") (internal quotation omitted); Holland v. City of Gary, 2:10-cv-454, 2012 WL 1388345, *5 (N.D.Ind. April 16, 2012) (same); Westefer v. Snyder, Nos. 00-162, 00-708, 2009 WL 839019, *2 (S.D.Ill. Mar. 31, 2009) ("Nothing in the statute governing in forma pauperis proceedings requires the Court to pay, or waive, the discovery costs of an in forma pauperis litigant.").
Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for leave to depose defendants [dkt. 75] is denied to the extent he seeks leave to take ...