Louis-Charles v. Baker et al, No. 9:2016cv01417 - Document 70 (N.D.N.Y 2018)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that plaintiff's letter motion seeking to strike the transcript of his deposition and to stay the deadline for plaintiff to file a response to defendants' summary judgment (Dkt. No. 57 ) is DENIED. Authorized by Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel on 4/2/18. (Attachments: # 1 Transcript) (served on plaintiff by regular mail)(alh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Louis-Charles v. Baker et al Doc. 70 Att. 1 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SAMUEL LOUIS-CHARLES, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. 16-CV-1417 ) vs. ) ) BAKER, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________ ) TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HON. CHRISTIAN F. HUMMEL WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2018 ALBANY, NEW YORK 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: SAMUEL LOUIS-CHARLES, Pro Se (Present via telephone) Livingston Correctional Facility, PO Box 91 Sonyea, New York 14556 FOR THE DEFENDANTS: MENTER, RUDIN & TRIVELPIECE, P.C. By: TERESA M. BENNETT, ESQ. (Present via telephone) 308 Maltbie Street, Suite 200 Syracuse, New York 13204-1498 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JACQUELINE STROFFOLINO, RPR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY Dockets.Justia.com 2 Louis-Charles v. Baker et al. - 16-cv-1417 1 2 (Open court, 2:00 p.m.) THE CLERK: The case is Louis-Charles versus Baker et 3 al., docket No. 16-CV-1417. 4 Plaintiff, you can state your name. 5 MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: 6 THE CLERK: 7 MS. BENNETT: Appearances for the record, please. 8 9 Samuel Louis-Charles. Thank you. Ms. Bennett. For the defendants, Theresa Bennett, Menter, Rudin & Trivelpiece. THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Louis-Charles. 10 afternoon, Ms. Bennett. 11 conference, Mr. Louis-Charles and Ms. Bennett, so we could 12 address, Mr. Louis-Charles, sir, the letter motion which you 13 filed back on February 16, 2018, by which you seek to strike 14 your deposition which was taken in this matter and to stay any 15 response by you to the Motion for Summary Judgment. 16 17 This is Judge Hummel. Good I scheduled this Mr. Louis-Charles, are you still seeking to have the Court strike your deposition? 18 MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: 19 THE COURT: 20 MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: 21 THE COURT: Yes, sir. Mr. Louis-Charles, sir, I can't hear you. Yes, sir. What I'm going to do, I'm going to put on 22 the record, Mr. Louis-Charles and Ms. Bennett, what has taken 23 place up until today's date. 24 Mr. Louis-Charles, tell me anything else you'd like to tell me 25 in support of your motion to strike the deposition. Then I will listen to you, JACQUELINE STROFFOLINO, RPR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY Then I'm 3 Louis-Charles v. Baker et al. - 16-cv-1417 1 going to listen to Ms. Bennett. 2 which I will put on the bench -- excuse me, put on the record 3 from the bench, which will govern this matter. 4 5 6 Then I will render a decision 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, 7 Mr. Louis-Charles, seeking an extension of time to file a 8 response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. 9 February 14, 2018. 10 That was filed on Docket No. 56 is a text order extending plaintiff's 11 time to file a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment which 12 was filed on February 16, 2018. 13 Docket No. 57 is the letter motion filed by 14 Mr. Louis-Charles which we're going to address today seeking to 15 strike his deposition and to stay his response to the Motion for 16 Summary Judgment, that having been filed on February 16, 2018. 17 Docket No. 60 is a letter motion filed by defendants' 18 attorneys in opposition to Mr. Louis-Charles's motion to strike 19 his deposition and to stay any response to the Motion for 20 Summary Judgment. 21 I would note that annexed as an exhibit to that letter 22 response which was filed by the defendants at docket No. 60-1 is 23 the transcript of the deposition which was taken of 24 Mr. Louis-Charles, which is approximately 110 pages in length. 25 And docket No. 60-2 is an errata sheet which was JACQUELINE STROFFOLINO, RPR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY 4 Louis-Charles v. Baker et al. - 16-cv-1417 1 prepared by Mr. Louis-Charles entitled, "Corrections to the 2 Deposition of Samuel Louis-Charles taken on August 18, 2017," 3 which was sworn to by Mr. Louis-Charles on October 23 of 2017. 4 Docket No. 65 was a letter filed by Mr. Louis-Charles 5 inquiring regarding the status of his motion to strike his 6 deposition transcript and seeking a stay of the time by which he 7 needed to file a response to the pending Motion for Summary 8 Judgment. 9 Docket No. 67 is plaintiff's response to the Motion 10 for Summary Judgment which was previously filed by the 11 defendants, that motion being docket No. 50 on the Court's 12 docket. 13 Mr. Louis-Charles, sir, I'm going to give you a chance 14 to tell me anything else you'd like to tell me, sir, about your 15 request that I strike your deposition transcript. 16 MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: 17 THE COURT: 18 MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: 19 THE COURT: 20 MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: The defendants' lawyer never -- Mr. Louis-Charles, I can't hear you. You can hear me now? That's better. The defendants' lawyers never gave 21 me an opportunity. I told her I didn't know nothing about the 22 laws about doing a deposition. 23 told her that I wasn't in my right state of mind to not do it. 24 I told her how I was feeling when she first asked me to come in, 25 "How do I feel?" I didn't know that I could have JACQUELINE STROFFOLINO, RPR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY 5 Louis-Charles v. Baker et al. - 16-cv-1417 1 I told her, "I'm not in my right state of mind because 2 I'm still having side effects from the illegal intoxicant that I 3 inhaled." 4 5 6 THE COURT: Mr. Louis-Charles, sir, did you say illegal intoxicant which you inhaled? MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: Yeah, you know, for the facility 7 doctor from the facility guidelines. 8 So I don't know how to say it. 9 that you're supposed to have in the facility. 10 THE COURT: Yeah, for the facility. It's illegal. It's not things That's fine, Mr. Louis-Charles. I just 11 couldn't hear you. So I just asked you to clarify so my court 12 reporter, who is diligently taking down everything you say, 13 could diligently do that. 14 MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: 15 side effects like foggy eyes, my mind. 16 state of mind when I did the deposition. 17 18 19 THE COURT: Okay. Yeah. The intoxicant had I wasn't in my right Anything else you want to tell me, Mr. Louis-Charles, sir? MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: Yeah. I didn't know that because 20 I told the CO and I never had none of my legal work or anything. 21 I was in the SHU. 22 did the deposition, but I didn't know that I could have denied 23 it, that I could have told them to reextend it. 24 nothing about that. 25 deposition. So I wasn't in my right state of mind when I I didn't know I didn't know the protocols of the I thought I had no choice to do it. JACQUELINE STROFFOLINO, RPR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY 6 Louis-Charles v. Baker et al. - 16-cv-1417 1 THE COURT: Then Mr. Louis-Charles, let me ask you a 2 question. At some point in time, did Ms. Bennett send you a 3 correction sheet so you could make any changes which you wished 4 to make to the transcript? 5 MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: 6 THE COURT: 7 MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: Yes. I was in the box. You were in the SHU at that time? I was in the SHU at that time. So 8 I didn't have anybody that could help me with the legal matters. 9 On that case, I would have then put down a motion to strike. 10 The guy that was assisting me with the case, he let me know. 11 He's like, "Yo, you should have just got this whole deposition 12 struck down." 13 remember half of the things that I was talking about. 14 expounding on things that I didn't even know what the hell I was 15 talking about. 16 I was just writing down what I know. THE COURT: I didn't I was To answer my question, Mr. Louis-Charles, 17 sir, more directly, at some point in time, Ms. Bennett sent to 18 you a correction sheet which you apparently filled out and swore 19 to on October 23 of 2017 and had your signature notarized. 20 you send that back to Ms. Bennett? 21 MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: 22 THE COURT: 23 Did Yes. Anything else you'd like to tell me, Mr. Louis-Charles, sir? 24 MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: 25 for Summary Judgment is due. I think my response to the Motion I don't know if you received that. JACQUELINE STROFFOLINO, RPR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY 7 Louis-Charles v. Baker et al. - 16-cv-1417 1 THE COURT: We got your response to the Motion for 2 Summary Judgment, Mr. Louis-Charles, sir. 3 Motion for Summary Judgment has been placed on the docket. 4 was received on March 16, 2018, and it includes among other 5 things an affidavit, a memorandum of law, and certain exhibits 6 which you filed with respect to your motion -- your response. 7 Excuse me. 8 9 Your response to the It So yes, we have received that, sir. Ms. Bennett, what, if anything, would you like to tell me? 10 MS. BENNETT: I think Your Honor is aware, as you 11 stated before, not only was Mr. Charles under the influence 12 allegedly of illegal contraband, he was under the influence 13 apparently two days before the actual deposition took place. 14 hasn't addressed whether or which response suggests that he was 15 unable to participate in the deposition. 16 answers to all of my questions without any difficulty 17 whatsoever. 18 He In fact, he gave And our motion is based upon his failure to exhaust 19 his administrative remedies, which he has admitted after the 20 fact. 21 confirmed again that he did not exhaust his -- so to go back to 22 that, that was done two months later. 23 have been under the influence of the same illegal substance 62 24 days after he consumed them. 25 So once we sent him the notice to correct any answers, he So he could not possibly And the fact that no one was there to help him in SHU JACQUELINE STROFFOLINO, RPR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY 8 Louis-Charles v. Baker et al. - 16-cv-1417 1 does not excuse his failure to change his own answers to the 2 deposition. 3 helping him doesn't know what happened. 4 incorrect, he needed to write it down on that sheet. 5 seven changes to his deposition. 6 addressed any other answer that he claims is incorrect. 7 He knows what happened. Somebody else who was So if his answers were That is all. He made He has not So in my opinion, there is no reason to strike his 8 deposition transcript unless he can identify questions in which 9 there are incorrect answers, and then he could have and did have 10 the opportunity to make changes. 11 12 THE COURT: Mr. Louis-Charles, sir, I'll give you the last word if you'd like, sir. 13 He did not. MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: Anything else you'd like to say? With this situation, the case 14 thing, all this documentation, everything, I understand how I'm 15 running, how the courts of the defendants work. 16 Bennett I wasn't in my right state of mind. 17 record. 18 the Court and told you that two individuals almost died. 19 38 episodes in two days. 20 still had side effects of the chemicals, and I still have side 21 effects to this day, which now I'm waiting to go see mental 22 health based on memory loss. 23 understand. 24 25 I told Teresa I said that on the I know I was still under the influence because I wrote It made the news and newspaper. So I don't know, sir. It was I I I don't know what else to say. THE COURT: Okay. else, Mr. Louis-Charles, sir. You don't have to say anything I just wanted to give you another JACQUELINE STROFFOLINO, RPR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY 9 Louis-Charles v. Baker et al. - 16-cv-1417 1 chance to speak if you wanted to because you're pro se, and I'm 2 trying to show special solicitude to you and give you an 3 opportunity to make sure the record is complete. 4 nothing else you'd like to say, sir, that's fine. 5 to give you an opportunity to do so before I made my decision. 6 MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: 7 THE COURT: So if there's I just wanted Thank you. The record should reflect that the Court 8 has had an opportunity to listen to Mr. Louis-Charles. 9 Court also had an opportunity to listen to Ms. Bennett. 10 The The Court has reviewed docket No. 57, which is 11 Mr. Louis-Charles's letter motion seeking to strike his 12 deposition and to stay his response to the Motion for Summary 13 Judgment, which was filed on February 16 of 2018. 14 I have further reviewed docket No. 60, which is the 15 letter motion -- excuse me, the letter response filed by the 16 defendants in opposition to the motion to strike the deposition 17 and in opposition to Mr. Louis-Charles's request for further 18 extension of time by which to respond to the Motion for Summary 19 Judgment. 20 The Court has further reviewed the entirety of the 21 transcript of Mr. Louis-Charles which was annexed as an exhibit 22 at docket No. 60-1 to the letter motion filed in opposition to 23 Mr. Louis-Charles's request by defense counsel. 24 25 I have further reviewed the correction sheet to the deposition of Samuel Louis-Charles which was taken on August 18, JACQUELINE STROFFOLINO, RPR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY 10 Louis-Charles v. Baker et al. - 16-cv-1417 1 2017, which was sworn to by Mr. Samuel Louis-Charles, the 2 plaintiff, on the 23rd day of October, 2017. 3 Based upon the Court's review of all of these 4 documents and the applicable case law, I'm going to deny 5 Mr. Louis-Charles's motion to strike the deposition for a number 6 of reason. 7 Number one, there's no indication to the Court that 8 Mr. Louis-Charles was in any way affected at the time of his 9 deposition by any intoxicant. The Court has reviewed in its 10 entirety the deposition of Mr. Louis-Charles and would note that 11 in each and every opportunity a question was presented to 12 Mr. Louis-Charles, he responded in a direct fashion. 13 extent that Mr. Louis-Charles did not understand any particular 14 question, on numerous occasions, he asked Ms. Bennett to clarify 15 her question, and she did so. 16 the transcript that Mr. Louis-Charles was in any way affected by 17 any illegal intoxicant which he may have taken two days prior to 18 his deposition. 19 To the There's no indication anywhere in The Court would further note that a correction sheet 20 was sent to Mr. Louis-Charles regarding his deposition. 21 Mr. Louis-Charles made a series of changes to that deposition 22 transcript and swore to those changes on October 23, 2017. 23 Court would note that that is more than two months after 24 Mr. Louis-Charles's deposition was taken. 25 provided Mr. Louis-Charles a full and complete opportunity to The The errata sheet JACQUELINE STROFFOLINO, RPR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY 11 Louis-Charles v. Baker et al. - 16-cv-1417 1 make any corrections he needed to with respect to his 2 transcript, and beyond the seven which he made, he did not make 3 any additional changes. 4 The Court would further note that Mr. Louis-Charles 5 has not pointed to any particular question or answer in the 6 transcript which would indicate in any way that he was confused 7 or unable to participate fully and completely with his 8 deposition. 9 Mr. Louis-Charles has further objected to the fact 10 that Ms. Bennett did not advise him of the procedures by which 11 the deposition would be conducted and specifically did not 12 advise him of Rule 30(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil 13 Procedure which governs objections. 14 30(c)(2) sets forth the manner by which objections may be stated 15 on the record. 16 to Mr. Louis-Charles the manner by which he may make objections. 17 Nothing in the statute requires her to do that. 18 she may have chosen not to do that is not a basis upon which to 19 strike Mr. Louis-Charles's deposition. 20 I would note that Rule There's no obligation on Ms. Bennett to explain The fact that Mr. Louis-Charles has also provided the Court with an 21 affidavit from what appears to be a fellow inmate named 22 Woodward, who has advised the Court of his observations 23 regarding Mr. Louis-Charles. 24 purported affidavit is in fact not signed or sworn to by 25 Mr. Woodward, and as such, in fact is not an affidavit. I would note, number one, that the JACQUELINE STROFFOLINO, RPR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY There's 12 Louis-Charles v. Baker et al. - 16-cv-1417 1 also nothing in that affidavit which indicates in any way that 2 Mr. Woodward is in a position to comment on Mr. Louis-Charles's 3 current mental condition or his ability to participate in a 4 deposition. 5 medical training or psychiatric training of any type. 6 There's no indication that Mr. Woodward has had any Given all of that information, I'm going to deny 7 Mr. Louis-Charles's motion to strike his deposition, and I will 8 do an order reflecting that. 9 I am now going to proceed in the next couple of weeks 10 to render a written decision with respect to 11 Mr. Louis-Charles -- with respect to the pending Motion for 12 Summary Judgment which has been responded to by 13 Mr. Louis-Charles. 14 Mr. Louis-Charles, sir, I'm not going to strike your 15 deposition. I'm going to deny that motion. 16 order reflecting that. 17 decision with respect to the Motion for Summary Judgment which 18 Ms. Bennett has filed. 19 Mr. Louis-Charles, sir, do you understand that? I will in short order send you a Do you understand that, sir? 20 MR. LOUIS-CHARLES: 21 THE COURT: 22 Yes. Ms. Bennett, anything else I can do for you? 23 MS. BENNETT: 24 THE COURT: 25 I'm going to do an No. That's all. Thank you, Your Honor. You folks have a nice day. Thank you. (The matter adjourned at 2:18 p.m.) JACQUELINE STROFFOLINO, RPR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY 13 Louis-Charles v. Baker et al. - 16-cv-1417 1 CERTIFICATION OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 2 3 4 I, JACQUELINE STROFFOLINO, RPR, Official Court Reporter, 5 in and for the United States District Court for the Northern 6 District of New York, do hereby certify that pursuant to Section 7 753, Title 28, United States Code, that the foregoing is a true 8 and correct transcript of the stenographically reported 9 proceedings held in the above-entitled matter and that the 10 transcript page format is in conformance with the regulations of 11 the Judicial Conference of the United States. 12 13 Dated this 30th day of March, 2018. 14 15 /s/ JACQUELINE STROFFOLINO 16 JACQUELINE STROFFOLINO, RPR 17 FEDERAL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JACQUELINE STROFFOLINO, RPR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - NDNY
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
