JOHNSON v. WICKERSHAM, 13-13672. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20140925c29
Visitors: 16
Filed: Sep. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 24, 2014
Summary: ORDER R. STEVEN WHALEN, Magistrate Judge. Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Compel Deontay Johnson's Reappearance to Continue Deposition [Doc. #37]. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c)(2), a deponent may object on the record to questions, but may refuse to answer only "when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3)." Defendants' attorney questioned Plaintiff regarding his criminal record. Plaintiff refused to answe
Summary: ORDER R. STEVEN WHALEN, Magistrate Judge. Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Compel Deontay Johnson's Reappearance to Continue Deposition [Doc. #37]. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c)(2), a deponent may object on the record to questions, but may refuse to answer only "when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3)." Defendants' attorney questioned Plaintiff regarding his criminal record. Plaintiff refused to answer..
More
ORDER
R. STEVEN WHALEN, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Compel Deontay Johnson's Reappearance to Continue Deposition [Doc. #37].
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c)(2), a deponent may object on the record to questions, but may refuse to answer only "when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3)." Defendants' attorney questioned Plaintiff regarding his criminal record. Plaintiff refused to answer and terminated the deposition.
Information regarding criminal convictions is not privileged. Nor do these questions reveal bad faith such that the Plaintiff could properly terminate the deposition under Rule 30(d)(3). A party's criminal record is a proper area of inquiry. See Fed.R.Ev. 609(a).
Plaintiff improperly refused to answer questions regarding his criminal history and improperly terminated his deposition. Therefore, Defendants' motion to compel his appearance to continue the deposition [Doc. #37] is GRANTED. Defendants shall renotice Plaintiff's deposition within 45 days of the date of this Order.
Plaintiff's failure to appear for his re-deposition may subject him to sanctions, including dismissal of his complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
