IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
December 22, 2006
SAMUEL HOROWITZ, PETITIONER,
C/O ESSARY AND C/O MURRAY, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Take Deposition Upon Oral Examination by Non-Stenographic Means. (Doc. 16).
Plaintiff seeks leave to take the depositions of unidentified non-party witnesses and of defendants by means of tape recording at Menard Correctional Center. He does not need leave to do so.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b) was amended in 1993 to permit non-stenographic recording of depositions. Rule 30(b)(2) now provides as follows:
The party taking the deposition shall state in the notice the method by which the testimony shall be recorded. Unless the court orders otherwise, it may be recorded by sound, sound-and-visual, or stenographic means, and the party taking the deposition shall bear the cost of the recording.
Defendants have indicated that they have no objection to plaintiff recording depositions. See, Doc. 20. However, as defendants point out, it is necessary for plaintiff so secure the attendance of a court reporter or other person authorized to administer oaths, pursuant to Rules 30(b)(4) and 28.
Upon consideration and for good cause shown, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Take Deposition Upon Oral Examination by Non-Stenographic Means (Doc. 16) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CLIFFORD J. PROUD U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.