Alley v. Long Island Railroad Company
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-07530
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Alley v. Long Island Railroad Company, Judge Schofield denied the plaintiff’s request to require remote depositions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The plaintiff and Long Island Railroad Company, concerning the timing and method of depositions and other fact discovery.
What happened
In Alley v. Long Island Railroad Company, the plaintiff asked the court to require depositions of parties and any needed nonparties to take place by telephone, videoconference, or another remote method. The request arose during the COVID-19 pandemic, when travel and in-person gatherings were restricted.
The plaintiff said remote depositions would allow discovery to continue and offered to arrange recording, a stenographer, communication technology, and equipment for witnesses who needed it. The railroad opposed remote depositions and said it had concerns about security, monitoring witnesses, employee illness, and witnesses’ access to technology.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the application. She explained that the letter did not request another discovery extension or adequately explain extraordinary circumstances justifying one, and that the parties’ failure to agree on a deposition process after about five months of discovery did not constitute extraordinary circumstances. The court reminded the parties that the existing scheduling order remained in effect.
The detailed version
- Alley v. Long Island Railroad Company · No. 1:19-cv-07530
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 9, 2020
Background
The plaintiff sought an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4) requiring depositions to be conducted by telephone, videoconference, or another remote method. The request was made during the COVID-19 pandemic, when government orders and public-health recommendations discouraged nonessential travel, in-person gatherings, and close physical contact.
The plaintiff’s letter stated that the railroad would not agree to remote depositions. It also stated that the railroad objected to conducting depositions until a later date that it would choose. The plaintiff offered to accommodate witnesses’ schedules, arrange recording and stenographic services, provide the communication platform, and supply a computer and mobile internet connection if necessary.
Parties’ Positions
The plaintiff argued that remote depositions were authorized by Rule 30(b)(4), were commonly allowed, and would permit discovery to continue safely. The letter cited cases discussing the liberal use of telephone and videoconference depositions and argued that the pandemic supplied a legitimate reason for remote testimony.
The railroad’s stated concerns included the security of videoconference platforms, the possibility that someone could be present with or assist a witness during questioning, the availability of railroad employees to testify, and some witnesses’ lack of suitable technology. The letter also stated that the railroad intended to reassess its position after April 30, 2020.
Ruling
The court denied the application. It noted that the fact-discovery deadline, including depositions, had already been extended after an untimely request. The current letter motion did not seek another extension and did not adequately explain extraordinary circumstances that would justify one. The court held that the parties’ failure to agree on a deposition process after approximately five months of discovery did not constitute extraordinary circumstances.
The court reminded the parties that the February 26, 2020, scheduling order remained applicable. The ruling addressed the discovery application; it did not decide the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying negligence claim.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.