UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
May 18, 2006
JOHN E. COVINGTON, PLAINTIFF
JIM SMITH, ET AL, DEFENDANT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Gorman United States Magistrate Judge
Now before the court is the plaintiff's motion (#48) to quash the May 22 deposition subpoena issued by defendants on May 9 to one Karen Covington. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.
In this motion, plaintiff purports to be bringing the deponent's interests before the court. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. He therefore cannot, as a matter of law, represent the interests of another person.
Even if the court were to consider the merits of his motion, however, it would be denied. The deposition relates directly to one of the main issues in this case, namely the location of plaintiff's residence. Since he claims that the deponent, whose last name is the same as his, had a sublease for the location in question and that she knows that he was never at the location in question, her testimony is clearly relevant.
His claim that the deposition didn't give the deponent enough time is without merit. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45c3A1 requires a reasonable amount of time between the notice and the deposition. Thirteen days is reasonable where the only thing sought is her testimony. There will be no need for an extensive search for documents or any other reason that more time is needed.
As far as being too burdensome, the defendants state that she will be compensated for her testimony. Her deposition, set at 1:00, means that she will miss about 4 hours of work. Defendant is directed to either compensate her for her lost wages or to re-set the time of the deposition to 4:30 p.m. on that same date.
All in all, there is no valid basis for the motion to quash and it is therefore denied.
ENTER this 18th day of May 2006.
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.