Bramlett v. Big Muddy River Correctional Center et al

Filing 65

ORDER DENYING 64 Motion for Amicus Curea. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 5/9/13. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHARLES E. BRAMLETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK S. CARICH,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:11-cv-97-GPM-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court is the “Motion for Amicus Curea at Scheduled Deposition
of Plaintiff” filed by Plaintiff, Charles E. Bramlett, on May 7, 2013 (Doc. 64). Plaintiff seeks
permission to have another inmate, Charles P. Allison, “to assist him in his effort to respond
appropriately to Defendant’s questions.” Plaintiff indicates that Mr. Allison has completed
paralegal coursework and serves as a law clerk at the law library. The Motion is DENIED.
Depositions proceed “as they would at trial” which means that Plaintiff would be entitled
to have his attorney present at the deposition. See FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(c)(1).
Mr. Allison, however, is not an attorney nor does he represent Plaintiff. Mr. Allison would not be
allowed to represent Plaintiff at trial or provide legal advice at trial. Moreover, even if Mr.
Allison is Plaintiff’s counsel, he would not be able to “assist” Plaintiff in answering questions at a
deposition. Counsel may not coach, suggest answers, explain questions, or otherwise confer with
Plaintiff while the deposition is being conducted. While Counsel may object to certain questions,
Plaintiff would still be required to respond to questions unless they seek privileged information,
are designed to harass, or otherwise are excluded by the Court. See FED.R.CIV.P. 30(c)(3).
For these reasons, the Motion for Amicus Curea at Scheduled Deposition of Plaintiff filed

by Plaintiff on May 7, 2013 (Doc. 64) is DENIED.
DATED: May 9, 2013

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

2