Hood v. Page et al

Filing 68

RULING denying 51 Motion to Suppress Plaintiff's Original Deposition Transcripts. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 06/03/2013. (CGP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CAREY LOUIS HOOD (#299810)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

DOROTHY PAGE, ET AL

NUMBER 12-287-JJB-SCR

RULING ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT
Before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion to Suppress the
Plaintiff’s Original Deposition Transcripts.
number 51.

Record document

The motion is not opposed.

Plaintiff sought to prevent the defendant from using his
deposition in support of a motion for summary judgment or at trial
on ground that he was asked personal questions which are unrelated
to the litigation.

Specifically, the plaintiff complained that he

was asked embarrassing questions regarding whether he has ever been
married, whether he has any children and where they live, the
nature and location of the crime for which he is incarcerated,
whether he takes medication, the number of lawsuits he has filed
and whether any of those lawsuits were dismissed as frivolous.
Plaintiff further argued that he has not been given an
opportunity to review the deposition transcript and should not be
required to pay for a copy of it.
There are no facts in the plaintiff’s motion which support a
finding that the deposition was taken in bad faith, or to harass or
oppress the plaintiff.

The so-called personal questions are

routine background questions commonly asked in a deposition and are
helpful in assessing the deponent’s credibility.

Defendant was

entitled to find out, before trial, what relevant evidence the
plaintiff has to support his remaining claim against defendant Lt.
Page.

A deposition is an appropriate means of doing so, and in

this case taking a deposition is consistent with Rule 26(b)(2),
Fed.R.Civ.P.
Assuming the plaintiff did not waive reading and signing the
deposition, the fact that the plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis does not entitle him to free copy of the deposition for
the purpose of reading and signing it
Accordingly,

the

plaintiff’s

Motion

to

Suppress

Plaintiff’s Original Deposition Transcripts is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, June 3, 2013.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

the