Opinion
2:21-cv-12257
11-15-2022
CASSANDRA DEVER, Plaintiff, v. JUAN M. AGUILAR FERNADEZ, Defendant.
Sean F. Cox District Judge
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION REGARDING DEPOSITION (ECF NO. 24)
KIMBERLY G. ALTMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Introduction
This is a consumer rights case. Plaintiff Cassandra Dever (Dever) sued defendants Champion Buick GMC, Inc. (Champion) and Juan M. Aguilar Fernandez (Fernandez) claiming violation of state and federal law stemming from allegations that defendants tampered with the odometer on a vehicle Dever purchased. See Amended Complaint, ECF No. 7. Dever has since dismissed her claims against Champion, see ECF No. 10, leaving Fernandez as the sole defendant. Fernandez is proceeding pro se. Pretrial proceedings have been referred to the undersigned. (ECF No. 14). Before the Court is Fernandez's motion regarding a scheduled deposition. (ECF No. 24). For the reasons that follow, the motion will be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
II. Discussion
Pro se motions are to be construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (stating that the allegations of Pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers); United States v. Jennings, 83 F.3d 145, 148 (6th Cir. 1996) (noting that Pro se motions must be construed liberally). However, the Court “ ‘should not have to guess at the nature of the claim [or defense] asserted.' ” Frengler v. Gen. Motors, 482 Fed.Appx. 975, 976-77 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989)).
Here, Fernandez complains of a notice of deposition he received, but did not properly understand, on August 18, 2022. (ECF No. 24, PageID.120). Presumably the notice required his appearance in Michigan, as he requests that the deposition be relocated to Chicago or “set on a Zoom type format.” (Id.). He also requests that a translator be present for his deposition and objects to Dever's document request, as he has already provided the documents in his possession to Dever. (Id., PageID.121).
As Dever has not filed a motion to compel Fernandez's deposition in accordance with the notice, the relief requested by Fernandez is not available through the Court at this time. Should Dever file such a motion, Fernandez can provide these and other reasons that he should not be subject to the deposition along those terms. In the meantime, the parties are encouraged to communicate and find a setting for the deposition that meets the needs of both parties.
III. Conclusion
As explained above, the relief sought by Fernandez in his motion regarding the noticed deposition, (ECF No. 24), is unavailable to him at this time. Therefore, Fernandez's motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.