Vardamaskos v. Long Island Railroad Company

Background

The plaintiff asked the court for permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4) to conduct party and, if necessary, nonparty depositions by telephone, videoconference, or another remote method. The request arose during the COVID-19 pandemic, when public-health guidance and government orders discouraged nonessential travel, in-person gatherings, and close physical contact.

The plaintiff stated that counsel had tried to obtain the railroad’s agreement to continue discovery remotely and offered to address scheduling, recording, court-reporting, and technology concerns. The plaintiff also offered to provide equipment and an internet connection when necessary. According to the plaintiff’s letter, the railroad refused to agree to remote depositions and objected to conducting depositions until a later date.

Requested relief and arguments

The plaintiff argued that Rule 30(b)(4) permits a court to order remote depositions and that Local Civil Rule 30.2 says a request to depose an opposing party by telephone or other remote means will presumptively be granted. The plaintiff relied on decisions stating that remote depositions should generally be allowed when the moving party gives a legitimate reason and the opposing party does not make a particularized showing of prejudice. The plaintiff argued that the pandemic supplied a legitimate reason and that available technology could address concerns about exhibits, recording, and participation.

The railroad’s stated concerns, as quoted in the plaintiff’s letter, included the security of videoconferencing platforms, uncertainty about who might be present with a witness, possible witness illness or unavailability, and whether some witnesses had the necessary technology. The railroad also stated that it would reassess its position after April 30, 2020.

Court action

The court scheduled a telephonic conference for May 14, 2020, at 11:30 a.m. The parties were directed to call the listed telephone number and access code. They were also directed to meet and confer about a joint secure solution for video depositions if the court decided to grant the plaintiff’s request. The conference was to be held simultaneously with the matter identified as 19 Civ. 11238.

The text provided does not show that the court granted or denied the request for remote depositions. It also does not address the merits of the plaintiff’s claims against the railroad. Judge Edgardo Ramos therefore appears to have issued a scheduling and discovery-related direction rather than a final ruling on the deposition request or the underlying case.