Nwandu v. Bach, et al

Filing 172

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 149 Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 5/24/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
JUDE P. NWANDU
11
Plaintiff,
12

v.

13

SERGEANT V. BACH, et al.

14

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No.06CV999 WMc
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION IN LIMINE [DOC. NO. 149]

15
On May 24, 2011, the Court held a telephonic hearing on the parties’ motions in limine. Plaintiff
16
pro se Jude Nwandu appeared. Suzanne Antley, Esq. appeared for Defendants. After hearing from
17
Plaintiff pro se and counsel of record, the Court issued an oral ruling denying Plaintiff’s motion in
18
limine which is incorporated by reference herein.
19
20

As directed by the Court at the May 24, 2011 teleconference, Plaintiff's motion in limine is

21

DENIED. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e), deponents have an opportunity to sign their

22

transcripts, but they are not required to do so. A refusal to sign a transcript does not affect its ultimate

23

admissiblity. Evans v. County of San Diego , 2009 WL 306609 (S.D.Cal., Feb. 4, 2009)("that the

24

deponent refuses to sign the deposition transcript does not make it inadmissible."). In fact, federal courts

25

have found that where signatures or corrections have been made outside of the 30-day time framed

26

allotted in FRCP 30(e) for alterations, the deponent can be said to have waived his opportunity to review

27

oramend the transcript and the original deposition transcript may be admitted into evidence. Blackthorne

28

v. Posner , 883 F.Supp. 1443, 1454 (D.Or. 1995). Accordingly, Plaintiff's refusal to sign the deposition

1

06cv999 WMc

1

has no effect on the admissibilty of the transcript. Admissiblity of the deposition transcript is governed

2

by Fed. R. of Evid. 403, which allows relevant evidence to be excluded if its probative value is

3

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion or misleading the jury. Here, Plaintiff has not

4

identified unfair prejudice or confusion that would result from use of his deposition transcript on cross

5

examination. Moreover, Plaintiff still retains the right at trial to object to use of his deposition testimony

6

on cross under Fed. R. of Evid. 403.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 24, 2011

9
10
11
12

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.
U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

06cv999 WMc