108 F.R.D. 376 (W.D.N.Y. 1985), CIV-78-281E, Nash v. Heckler
|Citation:||108 F.R.D. 376|
|Opinion Judge:||ELFVIN, District Judge.|
|Party Name:||Simon NASH, Plaintiff, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, John A. Svahn, Donald J. Devine, Louis B. Hays, Philip T. Brown and L. Charles Leonard, Defendants.|
|Attorney:||Simon Nash, Buffalo, N.Y., pro se. Brian G. Kennedy, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendants.|
|Case Date:||November 29, 1985|
|Court:||United States District Courts, 2nd Circuit, Western District of New York|
In action by administrative law judge employed by Social Security Administration seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as to certain practices by defendants which allegedly had improperly infringed his decisional independence, defendants moved to adduce into evidence various deposition testimony. The District Court, Elfvin, J., held that defendants were entitled to introduce deposition testimony on ground that witnesses were located more than 100 miles from place of trial.
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
In this action by an Administrative Law Judge employed by the Social Security Administration seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as to certain practices by the defendants which allegedly have improperly infringed his decisional independence, a trial without jury was commenced in this Court September 3, 1985 and adjourned sine die September 9th to permit, inter alia, the taking of certain depositions sought by the plaintiff. Presently pending is the defendants' motion, made orally at trial, to adduce into evidence various deposition testimony.
Specifically the defendants seek to have admitted into evidence the depositions of Burton Berkley, Herman Elegant, William R. Lavere, Joseph Chodes, Andrew J. Young, Donald Przybylinski, Louis B. Hays and Frank V. Smith, III, which previously had been filed in this case. The depositions are sought to be admitted in their entirety subject to certain exceptions which are set forth in the defendants' attorney's undated letter to Court (received September 16, 1985), a copy of which has been sent to the plaintiff. The exceptions are not germane to the present motion. The plaintiff has indicated he has no objection to the introduction of the depositions of Joseph Chodes and Herman Elegant and they are deemed admitted.
The plaintiff objects strenuously to the introduction of the remaining six depositions [hereinafter " the depositions" ]. These were held between August...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP