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.

Jude P. Nwandu v. Sergeant v. Bach

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 24, 2011

JUDE P. NWANDU
PLAINTIFF,
v.
SERGEANT V. BACH, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. William McCurine, Jr. U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE [DOC. NO. 149]

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

As directed by the Court at the May 24, 2011 teleconference, Plaintiff's motion in limine is DENIED. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e), deponents have an opportunity to sign their transcripts, but they are not required to do so. A refusal to sign a transcript does not affect its ultimate admissiblity. Evans v. County of San Diego , 2009 WL 306609 (S.D.Cal., Feb. 4, 2009)("that the deponent refuses to sign the deposition transcript does not make it inadmissible."). In fact, federal courts have found that where signatures or corrections have been made outside of the 30-day time framed allotted in FRCP 30(e) for alterations, the deponent can be said to have waived his opportunity to review oramend the transcript and the original deposition transcript may be admitted into evidence. Blackthorne v. Posner , 883 F.Supp. 1443, 1454 (D.Or. 1995). Accordingly, Plaintiff's refusal to sign the deposition has no effect on the admissibilty of the transcript. Admissiblity of the deposition transcript is governed by Fed. R. of Evid. 403, which allows relevant evidence to be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion or misleading the jury. Here, Plaintiff has not identified unfair prejudice or confusion that would result from use of his deposition transcript on cross examination. Moreover, Plaintiff still retains the right at trial to object to use of his deposition testimony on cross under Fed. R. of Evid. 403.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110524

© 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.