Francis v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-01713
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Francis v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., Judge Cronan denied without prejudice a request to conduct depositions remotely because the discovery letter did not follow court rules.
The plaintiff and National Railroad Passenger Corp.; the order concerned the procedure for taking their depositions and potentially depositions of nonparties.
What happened
In Francis v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., the plaintiff asked the court to allow party and, if needed, nonparty depositions by telephone or other remote methods during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The plaintiff said remote depositions would allow discovery to continue while avoiding travel and in-person gatherings. National Railroad Passenger Corp. opposed remote depositions and objected to conducting depositions until a later date.
Judge Cronan denied the application without prejudice because the plaintiff’s letter did not follow the court’s rules for discovery disputes. The court allowed the plaintiff to file a new letter by April 14, 2020, and scheduled discussion of the matter for the April 23, 2020, pretrial conference.
The detailed version
- Francis v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-01713
- John Cronan
- Apr. 9, 2020
Background
The plaintiff asked the court for permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4) to take depositions by telephone, videoconference, or another remote method. A deposition is sworn testimony taken before trial. The request concerned depositions of the parties and, if necessary, nonparty witnesses.
The plaintiff’s counsel said the COVID-19 pandemic, related travel restrictions, social-distancing requirements, and stay-at-home measures made in-person discovery difficult. Counsel represented that the plaintiff had tried to obtain National Railroad Passenger Corp.’s agreement to conduct remote depositions, but the defendant did not agree. The plaintiff offered to address scheduling, recording, transcription, technology, and equipment issues.
The letter cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 motion to take an adverse party’s deposition remotely will generally be granted. The plaintiff also cited decisions allowing remote depositions and argued that technology could permit participants to view exhibits and continue discovery during the pandemic.
National Railroad Passenger Corp. responded, as described in the plaintiff’s letter, that its experience with remote depositions had involved technical problems, unreliable internet connections, varying equipment, and difficulty using exhibits. The defendant also opposed proceeding with depositions until a later date.
Ruling
The court denied the application without prejudice to renewal. The court did not decide whether the depositions should ultimately occur remotely. Instead, it held that the plaintiff’s letter did not comply with the court’s Individual Rules, which require discovery disputes to begin with a letter of no more than three pages.
The court directed that any renewed letter be filed by April 14, 2020, and that the defendant file a response by April 21, 2020. The court stated that the dispute would be discussed at the initial pretrial conference scheduled for April 23, 2020. It also reminded the parties that their joint pre-conference materials were due April 16, 2020, under an earlier order.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.