Wedin v. Long Island Railroad Company
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-11238
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Wedin v. Long Island Railroad Company, Judge Ramos scheduled a conference about possible remote depositions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The plaintiff, Long Island Railroad Company, and any parties or nonparties whose depositions might be taken in the case.
What happened
Wedin v. Long Island Railroad Company concerns the plaintiff’s request to take party and possible nonparty depositions by telephone or other remote means during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff said remote discovery was needed to continue the case while avoiding travel and in-person gatherings.
The plaintiff said the railroad would not agree to remote depositions and would not participate in depositions before a later date. The plaintiff offered to arrange recording, a stenographer, communication technology, and equipment for witnesses who lacked internet access.
Judge Edgardo Ramos scheduled a telephonic conference for May 14, 2020, and directed the parties to discuss a secure technical method for video depositions. The text does not show that the court granted or denied the request for remote depositions.
The detailed version
- Wedin v. Long Island Railroad Company · No. 1:19-cv-11238
- Edgardo Ramos
- Apr. 9, 2020
Background
The plaintiff asked the court for permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4) to conduct depositions of the parties and, if needed, nonparties by telephone or other remote means. The plaintiff’s letter said the request was prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, including restrictions and recommendations concerning travel, gatherings, and physical distancing.
The plaintiff relied on Rule 30(b)(4), which allows a court to order a deposition by telephone or another remote method, and Local Civil Rule 30.2, which states that a request to take an opposing party’s deposition remotely will generally be granted. The letter also cited decisions discussing remote depositions and argued that the pandemic supplied a legitimate reason for using them.
Parties’ Positions
According to the plaintiff’s letter, the plaintiff’s counsel tried to obtain the railroad’s agreement to continue discovery remotely. Counsel offered to accommodate witness schedules, arrange recording and a stenographer, provide the communication platform, and supply a computer with a mobile internet connection if necessary.
The letter stated that the railroad opposed remote depositions. It quoted railroad counsel as citing security concerns about video-conferencing software, uncertainty about who might be present with a witness, possible witness technology problems, and the illness or unavailability of some railroad employees. The railroad’s quoted position was that it would not participate in video depositions until a New York State order was lifted and would reassess its position after April 30, 2020.
Court’s Action
The court set 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 technical solution for video depositions if the court decided to grant the plaintiff’s request. The case was to be heard at the same time as No. 19 Civ. 9850.
The text does not state that the court granted or denied the request to conduct depositions remotely. It also does not decide the underlying claims in the case. Judge Edgardo Ramos signed the endorsed filing dated April 9, 2020.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.