Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 24, 2020

Obi v. Koehler

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:18-cv-09041
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
DiscoveryPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Obi v. Koehler, Judge Halpern denied Obi’s request to have deposition expenses paid by the court or defendants.

Who this affects

The ruling directly affected Loretta Azuka Nwabundo Obi’s request for payment of deposition expenses and her ability to appeal without paying filing fees.

What happened

In Obi v. Koehler, Loretta Azuka Nwabundo Obi, representing herself, asked the court or the defendants to pay her deposition expenses.

The court explained that a self-represented party is responsible for paying the cost of recording a deposition. It noted that written questions and interrogatories may be used instead when a deposition is too expensive.

Judge Philip M. Halpern denied the motion, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Obi v. Koehler · No. 7:18-cv-09041
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
July 24, 2020

Background

Plaintiff Loretta Azuka Nwabundo Obi, who was proceeding without a lawyer, asked the court or the defendants to pay her deposition expenses. The opinion identifies the defendants as Steven Koehler and others.

Court’s analysis

The court referred Obi to the Southern District of New York’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. The court also noted that a party who cannot afford a deposition may use interrogatories or depositions by written questions under Rules 31 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Ruling

Judge Philip M. Halpern denied Obi’s motion. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was instructed to terminate the motion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.