Sturm v. Tunica-Biloxi Indians of Louisiana, (1999)

• Court: Tunica-Biloxi Tribal Court
• Writing for the Court: JUDGE KATHRYN FOWLER VAN HOOF
• Decision Date: 13 May 1999
• Docket Number: 98-004
• Citation: Sturm v. Tunica-Biloxi Indians of Louisiana (Tunica-Biloxi Tribal Ct. 1999)
• Parties: MARY KATHERINE STURM, ET VIR v. TUNICA-BILOXI INDIANS OF LOUISIANA

MARY KATHERINE STURM, ET VIR v. TUNICA-BILOXI INDIANS OF LOUISIANA

No. 98-004

Tunica-Biloxi Tribal Court Tunica-Biloxi Nation

May 13, 1999

JUDGMENT

JUDGE KATHRYN FOWLER VAN HOOF

FOR WRITTEN REASONS ASSIGNED, it is

ORDERED that the motion to compel plaintiff's attendance at oral deposition, at a time and place on the reservation and agreed to by the parties, is granted. Each party is to pay its own costs in connection with this motion and order.

SIGNED this 13th day of May, 1999 at Marksville, Avoyelles Parish Louisiana.

KATHRYN FOWLER VAN HOOF T'RIBAL JUDGE

WRITTEN REASONS

This matter came on for hearing on May 13, 1999 on motion to compel filed on behalf of defendant, TUNICA-BILOXI INDIANS OF LOUISIANA.

Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents were propounded to plaintiff, through her counsel of record, on August 28, 1998. Plaintiff failed to respond or object until the week prior to hearing. The parties agreed at the hearing that medical records had not yet been produced but that an agreement had been reached whereby plaintiff would shortly provide the documents to defendant. The only remaining issue involved the failure of plaintiff to present herself for an oral deposition on the reservation, in accordance with Tribal Code of Civil Procedure Article 20. b).

Defendant asserts that a number of written requests have been made for plaintiff to submit to oral deposition in the state and that plaintiff has failed to provide available dates. Plaintiff's counsel argues that she has moved out-of-state and is not available for deposition in-state.

Article 20.b) of the Tunica-Biloxi Code of Civil Procedure provides:

"A party may take the oral deposition of an adverse party under oath upon not less than 10 days notice, specifying the time and lace on the reservation where such will occur."

Any party who fails to appear may be compelled to do the same. Article 20.f).

Plaintiff offered no argument that she would be unduly burdened or prejudiced by an order compelling her to attend deposition on the reservation. Neither did she argue any hardship which would interfere with her compliance with tribal law. It cannot be presumed that the fact that she now lives out of state, unsupported by any other facts, is sufficient under the circumstances to constitute an exception to tribal codal law.

For these reasons, the motion to compel plaintiff's attendance at oral deposition,...