Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02242/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02242-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William Mark Isbell, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 04-2242 PHX JAT (VAM)

)

Justin Hughes, et al., ) O R D E R

)

 Defendants. )

On February 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a "Motion to Suppress

Deposition Transcripts." (Doc. 63). In the Motion, plaintiff

complains that the depositions were not properly noticed, his 13-

year old son's deposition should not be used as the child's mother

was not allowed to be present and he was not allowed to read and

sign his deposition. He asks the Court to order that plaintiff's

deposition, his son's deposition and the deposition of Jodie

Holmes may not be used by defendants in this action. Defendants

have responded rebutting all plaintiff's objections except

plaintiff's arguments regarding reading and signing his own

deposition. (Docs. 65, 67).

Plaintiff's arguments regarding the notices and the way the

depositions were conducted have been waived, have no merit and

plaintiff has suffered no prejudice. However, defendants have not

addressed plaintiff's right to read and sign his deposition. It

appears from the exhibits to plaintiff's motion that Rule 30(e),

Case 2:04-cv-02242-JAT Document 74 Filed 03/06/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

F.R.Civ.P. procedures have not occurred. Until plaintiff has a

realistic opportunity to read and sign his deposition, his

objections are well taken.

On February 17, 2006, plaintiff filed a request for status on

his motion for order to possess and use a personal typewriter. 

Plaintiff is informed this motion is pending before the District

Court Judge and will be ruled on in due course.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting in part and denying in part

plaintiff's Motion to Suppress Deposition Transcripts as set forth

above. (Doc. 63). Defendants shall assure compliance with Rule

30(e), F.R.Civ.P., regarding plaintiff's deposition.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting, as set forth above,

plaintiff's request for status. (Doc. 68).

DATED this 6th day of March, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02242-JAT Document 74 Filed 03/06/06 Page 2 of 2