Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
JONATHAN L. HENSLEE, )
)
Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
) MOTION FOR DEPOSITION OF
vs. ) DEFENDANTS THROUGH
) DEFENDANTS’ LAWYER
SHERRI LEWIS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
Order of Deposition of Defendants Through Defendants’ Lawyer.” (Doc. 58) The motion
apparently seeks an Order requiring defense counsel to depose his clients on written
questions submitted by Plaintiff as “the best way to handle this deposition.” (Motion, p.
1).
“[i]f plaintiff wants to depose defendant on written questions, plaintiff needs to set up
such a deposition, arrange for a court reporter and arrange for the attendance of the
Horel, 2007 WL 2177460 *2 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (pro se prisoner case). See also Doe v.
U.S., 112 F.R.D. 183, 185 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (neither the defendant nor the government is
notify[ing] the deponent of the agreed-upon time, place and manner of deposition.”
Since Plaintiff has not retained and paid a court reporter to cover the requested
depositions, his motion should be denied. He is certainly not without the means to obtain
substantial familiarity with the discovery process through the serving of interrogatories,
requests for admission, and at least two sets of requests for production.
2. CONCLUSION
denied.
I certify that the interested parties to this action were served this date with a copy
of the foregoing OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS
THROUGH DEFENDANTS’ LAWYER by placing said copy in the United States mail,
postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Jonathan L. Henslee
#0722492
P.O. Box 909
Taylorsville, NC 28681
3
WCSR 4026408v1