Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Joel L. Mingo v. Dr. Vipin Shah

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION


September 21, 2011

JOEL L. MINGO PLAINTIFF,
v.
DR. VIPIN SHAH, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sue E. Myerscough, U.S. District Judge:

E-FILED Wednesday, 21 September, 2011 06:17:45 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

OPINION

Plaintiff filed this case while incarcerated in Jacksonville Correctional Center, alleging that Dr. Shah was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. Plaintiff has since been released and resides in West Chicago, Illinois. Discovery is scheduled to close on September 30, 2011.

Plaintiff's deposition was scheduled for September 7, 2011, in Springfield, Illinois. On August 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to have the deposition taken by telephone, on the grounds that he lacked the financial means to travel to Springfield. He also asserted that he risks revocation of his parole if he misses his mandatory classes regarding substance abuse, anger management, and mental health. Judge Harold A. Baker directed the parties to notify the Court whether a video deposition would be feasible, using the IDOC's video conferencing equipment at Concordia in Springfield and at the Thompson Center in Chicago. This case was then transferred to this Court.

A video deposition using the IDOC facilities does not appear to be feasible because the IDOC defendants have been terminated from the case. Accordingly, the options appear to be requiring Plaintiff to appear in person in Springfield or allowing his motion to appear by telephone. Dr. Shah objects to conducting the deposition by phone, arguing that he cannot observe Plaintiff's demeanor and mannerisms through the phone.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4), the Court may order "that a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote means." The Court concludes that Plaintiff has shown good cause why he is unable to travel to Springfield for his deposition. Accordingly, his motion will be granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's motion to allow his deposition to be taken by telephone is granted (d/e 59). Dr. Shah may take Plaintiff's deposition by telephone or may travel to Chicago to take Plaintiff's deposition in person.

2. Sua sponte, the discovery deadline is extended to October 31, 2011. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to November 30, 2011.

ENTERED:

FOR THE COURT:

SUE E. MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20110921

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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