Meier v. St. Louis, Missouri, City of et al

Filing 54

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that only that portion of the amended case management order 53 which grants the motion to depose is vacated, and the remainder of the amended case management order remains in full force and effect. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to depose 51 remains pending and will be denied on November 13, 2017, unless defendant files a memorandum in support of the motion as set out above.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 11/7/17. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MARY MEIER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4: 16 CV 1549 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On November 3, 2017, I granted defendant’s motion to depose an
incarcerated witness. [53]. Plaintiff continues to object to the deposition, stating
in relevant part that the witness is not actually incarcerated at Farmington
Correctional Center but instead is in a rehab facility with no contact allowed. The
Court granted defendant’s request to depose based upon its representation that the
witness was available for deposition at FCC. If the witness is actually unavailable
because he is in a rehab facility, defendant must demonstrate a greater need for
such a deposition than previously set out in its motion. Defendant will also have to
provide the Court with evidence, in the form of an affidavit submitted by counsel,
that counsel has actually confirmed the witness’ placement in a rehab facility and
that he can and will be made available for deposition by the rehab facility.
Accordingly, the Court will vacate only that portion of the case management order

granting the motion for deposition.

The motion for deposition [51] remains

pending and will be denied on November 15, 2017, without further notice by the
Court unless defendant provides a memorandum in support of this motion which
demonstrates the need and availability of said deposition as set forth above. The
Court urges counsel to communicate with each other in an attempt to resolve issues
before filing motions, as many issues that have arisen in this case which have
required the Court’s attention could and should have easily been resolved by
counsel without Court intervention. Finally, the Court continues to believe that
this case could and should have been resolved during good faith settlement
negotiations and urges the parties to devote additional efforts to do so.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that only that portion of the amended case
management order [53] which grants the motion to depose is vacated, and the
remainder of the amended case management order remains in full force and effect.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to depose [51] remains
pending and will be denied on November 13, 2017, unless defendant files a
memorandum in support of the motion as set out above.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 7th day of November, 2017.
2