Comes now the plaintiff, Lee Allen Martin, and does file this Motion to Suppress Notice of Deposition of the Plaintiff for the fact that the Notice is fundamentally flawed upon its face in that it does not meet the criteria stated in Missouri Supreme Court Rule 57.02(a)(1) and 57.05(d). Plaintiff is entitled to know the presumed court reporter so that he may protect his rights provided in Missouri Supreme Court Rule 57.05(d).
H., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. D., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 373 S.W.2d 646 :
defective notice, waived by failure to file timely motion to suppress; Empire Dist. Electric Co. v. Johnston, 241 Mo. App.759, 763-764, 268 S.W.2d 78, 80-81[1, 2], disqualification of notary on ground he was party's attorney waived when no objection made up to time of trial; State ex rel. Ford v. Rudolph, Mo. App., 29 S.W.2d 199, 200[3, 4], propriety of granting continuance in taking depositions a question of error, to be raised by motion to suppress; Hunchens v. Wagner, Mo. App., 274 S.W. 105, 106[1], objections for irregularity in taking of a deposition should be made promptly and before trial; Abbott v. Marion Mining Co., 112 Mo. App.550, 554, 87 S.W. 110, 111, testimony taken by stenographer when notary was absent, waived by failure to move to suppress before trial. Cf. Moore v. Keesey, 26 Wash.2d 31, 173 P.2d 130, 140-141[9], power of resident notary to act out of state must be tested by motion before trial. See also 16 Am. Jur., Depositions, § 93, p. 738.
Missouri Supreme Court Rule 57.02(a)(1) states:
Defendant Notice of Deposition fails to state subject matter of the expected action and the petitioner's interest as provided in part (2) of the listed rule. What facts are to be established by the proposed testimony and the reasons for desiring to perpetuate it as stated in part (3) of the listed rule.
Plaintiff asks the court to take notice of the fact that at no time prior to this Notice of Deposition has the Defendant offered any Discovery as provided in the Missouri Supreme Court Rules. Plaintiff suggests that information wanted by defendant in trial preparation could be acquired via interrogatories, and or production of documents. Further plaintiff contends that defendants use of deposition at this late date is done to harass and burden the plaintiff, and is not being used to acquire information needed for trial preparation. The Action before the Honorable Court is one of Declaratory Judgment arising out of Chapter 610 of the Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri. Plaintiff contends that Defendant is seeking privilege trial preparation of the Plaintiff, and that with due diligence on the part of counsel the defendant would need no more information than residence of the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff asks that the honorable court to quash Defendant's Notice of Deposition. Plaintiff further requests that to prevent undue burden upon pro se, forma pauperis, plaintiff that deposition be allowed by telephone as provided in Missouri Supreme Court Rule 57.03(b)(1).
Lee Martin
PRO SE
VS.
CAROL RUSSELL FISCHER
KEITH HOLCOMB
Attorney)
)
)
)
)
)CASE #01CV324209
The Southern District Court noted the timeliness of objection and Motion to Suppress is of utmost import to the Appeals Courts for the State of Missouri. Missouri Supreme Court Rule 557.05(d) provides for disqualification of the Court Reporter.
A person who desires to perpetuate testimony of any person regarding any matter that may be cognizable in any court of Missouri may file a verified petition in the circuit court in the county of the residence of any expected adverse party. The petition shall be captioned in the name of the petitioner and shall show: (1) that the petitioner expects to be a party to an action cognizable in a court of Missouri but is presently unable to bring it or cause it to be brought, (2) the subject matter of the expected action and the petitioner's interest therein, (3) the facts desired to be established by the proposed testimony and the reasons for desiring to perpetuate it, (4) the names or a description of the persons expected to be adverse parties and their addresses so far as known, and (5) the names and addresses of the persons to be examined and the substance of the testimony that is expected to be elicited from each.
Lee Allen Martin
7050 County Road 2810
West Plains
Missouri, 65775
I hereby certify this pleading was served upon all attorneys of record for each of the parties to this action and All parties not represented by counsel in the following manner:
[ ] By delivering a copy to them.
[ ] By leaving a copy at their office with the clerk.
[ ] By leaving a copy at them office with an attorney associated with them.
[ ]By mailing a copy to them as prescribed by law
[ ] By faxing a copy to them.
April 10, 2002
So certified: _____________________________
Lee Allen Martin
The foregoing pleading will be called for hearing before the court on April 21 2002 at 1 pm or as soon thereafter as petitioner may be heard. So noticed:
_______________________________
Lee Allen Martin