Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Horowitz v. Essary

December 22, 2006

SAMUEL HOROWITZ, PETITIONER,
v.
C/O ESSARY AND C/O MURRAY, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge

ORDER

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

20061222

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.