Ross

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ALEXANDRA FERREIRA DA SILVA, No. 2:21-cv-1208-DJC-CKD (PS) Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER

HEIDI C. MORGAN

15 Defendant.

17 Plaintiff proceeds pro se and with limited purpose appointed counsel. (See ECF No. 77.) Filing pro se, plaintiff filed a “Petition for Extension of Time to Review Deposition Transcriptions, and [for] Complete Nullification of the First Deposition.” (ECF No. 88.) The court previously determined plaintiff could bring this motion pro se and instructed plaintiff to re- notice the motion under the procedure of Local Rule 230(b) with a hearing date before the undersigned. (ECF No. 89.) Plaintiff has done so. (ECF No. 92.) The court now finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument under Local Rule 230(g). Accordingly, the hearing date is vacated. The motion is denied. Under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, on request by the deponent before the deposition has ended, the deponent may review the transcript or recording…