Arce complied with Rule 30(e)'s thirty-day requirement. Contrary to what Plaintiff argues, it is this latter date that the Court must consider when determining whether Mrs. However, it was not until the next day, August 25, 2015, that she appeared before a notary public and signed a statement certifying that "the foregoing transcript (with the errata sheets attached) accurately states the questions asked and the answers given by me as they now appear." (Doc. Arce represents that she "began review and certification on Augand completed the review and errata sheets on August 24, 2015." (Doc. In its brief, the CTA agreed that the writing evidences receipt on July 25, so the Court adopts this date in absence of disagreement. Instead, illegible writing appears in that section. The return receipt is stamped with a date of July 22, 2015, but the stamped date is not in the "date of delivery" section of the form. Arce received notice on J(the date of the letter), prompting the Court to request a copy of the United States Postal Service return receipt. Arce received notice, thus triggering the thirty-day period under Rule 30(e). The CTA agrees that this is the date when Mrs. Arce's declaration, she received the letter on July 25, 2015. Arce was invited to make an appointment to read and sign the deposition within twenty-eight days from the date of the letter. McCorkle Court Reporters recorded the deposition, and it prepared a certified letter on Jthat stated that the deposition transcript was "now ready for reading and signing as required by law." (Doc. Arce did not complete her changes within the thirty-day deadline. The Court considers the two arguments in turn. The Rule provides that, upon request by a deponent or a party before a deposition is completed, "a deponent must be allowed 30 days after being notified by the officer that the transcript or recording is available in which: (A) to review the transcript or recording and (B) if there are changes in form or substance, to sign a statement listing the changes and the reasons for making them." Fed R. The CTA's timeliness and scope-of-changes arguments rest on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e)(1). § 1983, and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.Ģ For ease of reference, unless otherwise specified, page numbers for all briefs and exhibits are drawn from the CM/ECF docket entries at the top of the filed document. 102), the remaining claims are solely against the CTA, for discrimination based on race, national origin, and disability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 2 The motion asks that the errata changes be stricken in their entirety because they are untimely and beyond the scope of Rule 30(e)'s allowance of changes in "form or substance." For the reasons described below, the Court denies the CTAs motion without prejudice.ġ Following the district judge's ruling on the CTA's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. The CTA filed a "Motion to Strike the Errata Sheets for Charlotte Arce's Deposition" on September 29, 2015. On August 25, 2015, she signed and certified sixty-seven changes to her deposition answers. 1 At the conclusion of her deposition, Mrs. Arce is a witness with relevant knowledge of his claims in this case. On June 29, 2015, Defendant Chicago Transit Authority (the "CTA") deposed Charlotte Arce, spouse of Plaintiff Israel Arce, based upon Plaintiff's Rule 26(a) disclosure that Mrs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |