CHRISTIAN F. HUMMEL, Magistrate Judge.
On January 31, 2018, defendants Corrections Sergeant ("Sgt.") Baker, Corrections Sgt. Newton, Corrections Officer ("C.O.") Macilvennie, C.O. Frank Seymore, and C.O. Patterson filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 50. On February 14, 2018, plaintiff
On February 16, 2018, plaintiff filed a letter motion seeking an order striking the transcript of his deposition and staying the deadline for plaintiff to file a response to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 57. Defendants filed a response in opposition to plaintiff's letter motion. Dkt. No. 60. Defendants annexed the transcript of plaintiff's deposition to their response. Dkt. No. 60-1. On March 3, 2018, the Court issued a notice scheduling a conference to address plaintiff's letter motion. Dkt. No. 62. On March 16, 2018, plaintiff filed a response to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 67.
On March 21, 2018, the Court conducted a hearing on plaintiff's letter motion seeking to strike his deposition transcript and stay his response to the motion for summary judgment. The transcript of that proceeding is annexed to this Decision and Order. As directed during that hearing, and for the reasons stated at that time, which are incorporated herein by reference, plaintiff's motion seeking to strike the transcript of his deposition (Dkt. No. 57) is
THE CLERK: The case is Louis-Charles versus Baker et al., docket No. 16-CV-1417. Appearances for the record, please. Plaintiff, you can state your name.
MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: Samuel Louis-Charles.
THE CLERK: Thank you. Ms. Bennett.
MS. BENNETT: For the defendants, Theresa Bennett, Menter, Rudin & Trivelpiece.
THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Louis-Charles. Good afternoon, Ms. Bennett. This is Judge Hummel. I scheduled this conference, Mr. Louis-Charles and Ms. Bennett, so we could address, Mr. Louis-Charles, sir, the letter motion which you filed back on February 16, 2018, by which you seek to strike your deposition which was taken in this matter and to stay any response by you to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Mr. Louis-Charles, are you still seeking to have the Court strike your deposition?
MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Louis-Charles, sir, I can't hear you.
MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: What I'm going to do, I'm going to put on the record, Mr. Louis-Charles and Ms. Bennett, what has taken place up until today's date. Then I will listen to you, Mr. Louis-Charles, tell me anything else you'd like to tell me in support of your motion to strike the deposition. Then I'm going to listen to Ms. Bennett. Then I will render a decision which I will put on the bench — excuse me, put on the record from the bench, which will govern this matter.
Docket No. 50 is the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment which was filed back on January 31, 2018.
Docket No. 54 is a letter motion from the plaintiff, Mr. Louis-Charles, seeking an extension of time to file a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. That was filed on February 14, 2018.
Docket No. 56 is a text order extending plaintiff's time to file a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment which was filed on February 16, 2018.
Docket No. 57 is the letter motion filed by Mr. Louis-Charles which we're going to address today seeking to strike his deposition and to stay his response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, that having been filed on February 16, 2018.
Docket No. 60 is a letter motion filed by defendants' attorneys in opposition to Mr. Louis-Charles's motion to strike his deposition and to stay any response to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
I would note that annexed as an exhibit to that letter response which was filed by the defendants at docket No. 60-1 is the transcript of the deposition which was taken of Mr. Louis-Charles, which is approximately 110 pages in length. prepared by Mr. Louis-Charles entitled, "Corrections to the Deposition of Samuel Louis-Charles taken on August 18, 2017," which was sworn to by Mr. Louis-Charles on October 23 of 2017.
Docket No. 65 was a letter filed by Mr. Louis-Charles inquiring regarding the status of his motion to strike his deposition transcript and seeking a stay of the time by which he needed to file a response to the pending Motion for Summary Judgment.
Docket No. 67 is plaintiff's response to the Motion for Summary Judgment which was previously filed by the defendants, that motion being docket No. 50 on the Court's docket.
Mr. Louis-Charles, sir, I'm going to give you a chance to tell me anything else you'd like to tell me, sir, about your request that I strike your deposition transcript.
MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: The defendants' lawyer never —
THE COURT: Mr. Louis-Charles, I can't hear you.
MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: You can hear me now?
THE COURT: That's better.
MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: The defendants' lawyers never gave me an opportunity. I told her I didn't know nothing about the laws about doing a deposition. I didn't know that I could have told her that I wasn't in my right state of mind to not do it. I told her how I was feeling when she first asked me to come in, "How do I feel?"
I told her, "I'm not in my right state of mind because I'm still having side effects from the illegal intoxicant that I inhaled."
THE COURT: Mr. Louis-Charles, sir, did you say illegal intoxicant which you inhaled?
MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: Yeah, you know, for the facility doctor from the facility guidelines. Yeah, for the facility. So I don't know how to say it. It's illegal. It's not things that you're supposed to have in the facility.
THE COURT: That's fine, Mr. Louis-Charles. I just couldn't hear you. So I just asked you to clarify so my court reporter, who is diligently taking down everything you say, could diligently do that.
MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: Okay. Yeah. The intoxicant had side effects like foggy eyes, my mind. I wasn't in my right state of mind when I did the deposition.
THE COURT: Anything else you want to tell me, Mr. Louis-Charles, sir?
MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: Yeah. I didn't know that because I told the CO and I never had none of my legal work or anything. I was in the SHU. So I wasn't in my right state of mind when I did the deposition, but I didn't know that I could have denied it, that I could have told them to reextend it. I didn't know nothing about that. I didn't know the protocols of the deposition. I thought I had no choice to do it.
THE COURT: Then Mr. Louis-Charles, let me ask you a question. At some point in time, did Ms. Bennett send you a correction sheet so you could make any changes which you wished to make to the transcript?
MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: Yes. I was in the box.
THE COURT: You were in the SHU at that time?
MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: I was in the SHU at that time. So I didn't have anybody that could help me with the legal matters. On that case, I would have then put down a motion to strike. The guy that was assisting me with the case, he let me know. He's like, "Yo, you should have just got this whole deposition struck down." I was just writing down what I know. I didn't remember half of the things that I was talking about. I was expounding on things that I didn't even know what the hell I was talking about.
THE COURT: To answer my question, Mr. Louis-Charles, sir, more directly, at some point in time, Ms. Bennett sent to you a correction sheet which you apparently filled out and swore to on October 23 of 2017 and had your signature notarized. Did you send that back to Ms. Bennett?
MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: Yes.
THE COURT: Anything else you'd like to tell me, Mr. Louis-Charles, sir?
MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: I think my response to the Motion for Summary Judgment is due. I don't know if you received that.
THE COURT: We got your response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Mr. Louis-Charles, sir. Your response to the Motion for Summary Judgment has been placed on the docket. It was received on March 16, 2018, and it includes among other things an affidavit, a memorandum of law, and certain exhibits which you filed with respect to your motion — your response. Excuse me. So yes, we have received that, sir.
Ms. Bennett, what, if anything, would you like to tell me?
MS. BENNETT: I think Your Honor is aware, as you stated before, not only was Mr. Charles under the influence allegedly of illegal contraband, he was under the influence apparently two days before the actual deposition took place. He hasn't addressed whether or which response suggests that he was unable to participate in the deposition. In fact, he gave answers to all of my questions without any difficulty whatsoever.
And our motion is based upon his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, which he has admitted after the fact. So once we sent him the notice to correct any answers, he confirmed again that he did not exhaust his — so to go back to that, that was done two months later. So he could not possibly have been under the influence of the same illegal substance 62 days after he consumed them.
And the fact that no one was there to help him in SHU does not excuse his failure to change his own answers to the deposition. He knows what happened. Somebody else who was helping him doesn't know what happened. So if his answers were incorrect, he needed to write it down on that sheet. He made seven changes to his deposition. That is all. He has not addressed any other answer that he claims is incorrect.
So in my opinion, there is no reason to strike his deposition transcript unless he can identify questions in which there are incorrect answers, and then he could have and did have the opportunity to make changes. He did not.
THE COURT: Mr. Louis-Charles, sir, I'll give you the last word if you'd like, sir. Anything else you'd like to say?
MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: With this situation, the case thing, all this documentation, everything, I understand how I'm running, how the courts of the defendants work. I told Teresa Bennett I wasn't in my right state of mind. I said that on the record. I know I was still under the influence because I wrote the Court and told you that two individuals almost died. It was 38 episodes in two days. It made the news and newspaper. I still had side effects of the chemicals, and I still have side effects to this day, which now I'm waiting to go see mental health based on memory loss. So I don't know, sir. I understand. I don't know what else to say.
THE COURT: Okay. You don't have to say anything else, Mr. Louis-Charles, sir. I just wanted to give you another chance to speak if you wanted to because you're pro se, and I'm trying to show special solicitude to you and give you an opportunity to make sure the record is complete. So if there's nothing else you'd like to say, sir, that's fine. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to do so before I made my decision.
MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: Thank you.
THE COURT: The record should reflect that the Court has had an opportunity to listen to Mr. Louis-Charles. The Court also had an opportunity to listen to Ms. Bennett.
The Court has reviewed docket No. 57, which is Mr. Louis-Charles's letter motion seeking to strike his deposition and to stay his response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, which was filed on February 16 of 2018.
I have further reviewed docket No. 60, which is the letter motion — excuse me, the letter response filed by the defendants in opposition to the motion to strike the deposition and in opposition to Mr. Louis-Charles's request for further extension of time by which to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court has further reviewed the entirety of the transcript of Mr. Louis-Charles which was annexed as an exhibit at docket No. 60-1 to the letter motion filed in opposition to Mr. Louis-Charles's request by defense counsel.
I have further reviewed the correction sheet to the deposition of Samuel Louis-Charles which was taken on August 18, 2017, which was sworn to by Mr. Samuel Louis-Charles, the plaintiff, on the 23rd day of October, 2017.
Based upon the Court's review of all of these documents and the applicable case law, I'm going to deny Mr. Louis-Charles's motion to strike the deposition for a number of reason.
Number one, there's no indication to the Court that Mr. Louis-Charles was in any way affected at the time of his deposition by any intoxicant. The Court has reviewed in its entirety the deposition of Mr. Louis-Charles and would note that in each and every opportunity a question was presented to Mr. Louis-Charles, he responded in a direct fashion. To the extent that Mr. Louis-Charles did not understand any particular question, on numerous occasions, he asked Ms. Bennett to clarify her question, and she did so. There's no indication anywhere in the transcript that Mr. Louis-Charles was in any way affected by any illegal intoxicant which he may have taken two days prior to his deposition.
The Court would further note that a correction sheet was sent to Mr. Louis-Charles regarding his deposition. Mr. Louis-Charles made a series of changes to that deposition transcript and swore to those changes on October 23, 2017. The Court would note that that is more than two months after Mr. Louis-Charles's deposition was taken. The errata sheet provided Mr. Louis-Charles a full and complete opportunity to make any corrections he needed to with respect to his transcript, and beyond the seven which he made, he did not make any additional changes.
The Court would further note that Mr. Louis-Charles has not pointed to any particular question or answer in the transcript which would indicate in any way that he was confused or unable to participate fully and completely with his deposition.
Mr. Louis-Charles has further objected to the fact that Ms. Bennett did not advise him of the procedures by which the deposition would be conducted and specifically did not advise him of Rule 30(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which governs objections. I would note that Rule 30(c)(2) sets forth the manner by which objections may be stated on the record. There's no obligation on Ms. Bennett to explain to Mr. Louis-Charles the manner by which he may make objections. Nothing in the statute requires her to do that. The fact that she may have chosen not to do that is not a basis upon which to strike Mr. Louis-Charles's deposition.
Mr. Louis-Charles has also provided the Court with an affidavit from what appears to be a fellow inmate named Woodward, who has advised the Court of his observations regarding Mr. Louis-Charles. I would note, number one, that the purported affidavit is in fact not signed or sworn to by Mr. Woodward, and as such, in fact is not an affidavit. There's also nothing in that affidavit which indicates in any way that Mr. Woodward is in a position to comment on Mr. Louis-Charles's current mental condition or his ability to participate in a deposition. There's no indication that Mr. Woodward has had any medical training or psychiatric training of any type.
Given all of that information, I'm going to deny Mr. Louis-Charles's motion to strike his deposition, and I will do an order reflecting that.
I am now going to proceed in the next couple of weeks to render a written decision with respect to Mr. Louis-Charles — with respect to the pending Motion for Summary Judgment which has been responded to by Mr. Louis-Charles.
Mr. Louis-Charles, sir, I'm not going to strike your deposition. I'm going to deny that motion. I'm going to do an order reflecting that. I will in short order send you a decision with respect to the Motion for Summary Judgment which Ms. Bennett has filed. Do you understand that, sir? Mr. Louis-Charles, sir, do you understand that?
MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: Yes.
THE COURT: Ms. Bennett, anything else I can do for you?
MS. BENNETT: No. That's all. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You folks have a nice day. Thank you.
I, JACQUELINE STROFFOLINO, RPR, Official Court Reporter, in and for the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, do hereby certify that pursuant to Section 753, Title 28, United States Code, that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of the stenographically reported proceedings held in the above-entitled matter and that the transcript page format is in conformance with the regulations of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
