Obi v. Westchester Medical Regional Physician Services, PC
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-03022
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Obi v. Westchester Medical, Judge Briccetti denied Loretta Azuka Obi’s request that the court or defendants pay her deposition expenses.
Loretta Azuka Obi, who was proceeding without a lawyer, was required to pay the cost of recording her deposition; the defendants were not ordered to pay it.
What happened
In Obi v. Westchester Medical Regional Physician Services, P.C., Loretta Azuka Obi, who was representing herself, asked the court or defendants to pay her deposition expenses.
The court explained that its Discovery Guide for Pro Se Litigants requires a self-represented party to pay the cost of recording a deposition. It also identified interrogatories and depositions by written questions as alternatives when a deposition is too expensive.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied the motion and reminded Obi that she must read and follow the Discovery Guide. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Obi v. Westchester Medical Regional Physician Services, PC · No. 7:19-cv-03022
- Vincent Briccetti
- July 20, 2020
Background
Loretta Azuka Obi, proceeding without a lawyer, asked the court or the defendants to pay her deposition expenses. The motion was docketed as Doc. #38.
Court’s Reasoning
The court noted that, at the April 29, 2020 initial pretrial conference, Obi had been instructed to review and comply with the court’s “Discovery Guide for Pro Se Litigants.” The guide states that a self-represented party is responsible for paying the cost of recording a deposition. It also explains that a party who cannot afford a deposition may use interrogatories to obtain answers from a party or a party’s employee. The court further directed Obi to consult the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provide for interrogatories and depositions by written questions.
Ruling
The court denied Obi’s motion. It reminded her that, as a self-represented party, she was required to read and comply with the Discovery Guide. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. The Clerk was instructed to terminate the motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.