ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS HIS DEPOSITION (ECF No. 36)

ANDREW G. SCHOPLER, Magistrate Judge.

After plaintiff was deposed, he asserts that he was not given timely access to his deposition transcript in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e). Based on this alleged procedural error, he moves the Court to: (1) bar the use of his deposition testimony for any purpose, (2) discipline opposing counsel, (3) discipline the deposition officer, and (4) order that any further pretrial examination of him be conducted exclusively by written interrogatories. Even assuming there was a Rule 30(e) violation, the Court has found no legal authority to justify such drastic sanctions.1 So, plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

Although this specific motion is improper, the Court recognizes that plaintiff Clayton Thibodeau, who is pro se, may have had good reasons for failing to review his deposition transcript before it was certified. On June 24, 2017, he learned that the transcript was available. In the notification letter, the transcription service provided contact information for all seven of its offices. (See Pl. Ex. 3, ECF No. 36, at 8.) But it appears Thibodeau was genuinely confused about which of these offices he was supposed to contact to review the transcript. (See, e.g., ECF No. 53, at 5-6.) He has since learned the deposition officer's name, email address, and direct phone number. (See ECF No. 53, at 9-10.) Thus, he should have no further confusion about how to obtain a copy of the transcript.

To avoid any possible prejudice to Thibodeau, the Court allows him until February 9, 2018, to provide defendant with a statement of corrections under Rule 30(e), listing any changes to his May 30, 2017 deposition transcript and the reasons for making them. The parties are reminded that any proposed corrections under Rule 30(e) cannot "alter what was said under oath." Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enterprises, Inc., 397 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).