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 state the name of the court reporter. 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.
As so noted by the Southern District Court in the aforementioned cause the timeliness of objection and Motion to Suppress is of utmost import to the Appeals Courts for the State of Missouri.
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 form of 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 for defendant the defendant would need no more information than residence of the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff asks that the honorable court grant 30 days to determine the good faith of the defendant counsel in the deposition. Further Plaintiff requests that any deposition taken by defendant on the plaintiff be done in a neutral spot. Plaintiff asserts that the Attorney General's Office is not neutral. 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
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.
February 4, 2002
So certified: _____________________________
Lee Allen Martin
The foregoing pleading will be called for hearing before the court on February 4th 2002 at 1 pm or as soon thereafter as petitioner may be heard. So noticed:
_______________________________
Lee Allen Martin