Wilson v. Long Island Railroad Company
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-11231
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Wilson v. Long Island Railroad Company, Judge Nathan granted a conference request about remote depositions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The ruling affected the plaintiff and Long Island Railroad Company by setting a court conference about how depositions and discovery would proceed; it did not resolve the remote-deposition dispute or the underlying claims.
What happened
Wilson v. Long Island Railroad Company concerns the plaintiff’s request to continue depositions by telephone, videoconference, or another remote method during the COVID-19 pandemic. The filing relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4), which allows a court to order remote depositions.
The plaintiff’s filing said the railroad would not agree to remote depositions and was objecting to depositions until a later date. The plaintiff offered to arrange scheduling, recording, a stenographer, and the technology needed for remote testimony. The railroad raised concerns about security, observing who might be with a witness, technology access, employee illness, and producing witnesses.
Judge Alison J. Nathan granted the request for an informal conference and ordered that it be held as part of the Initial Pretrial Conference on May 27, 2020. The text does not show that the judge decided whether the depositions themselves had to occur remotely.
The detailed version
- Wilson v. Long Island Railroad Company · No. 1:19-cv-11231
- Alison Nathan
- Apr. 20, 2020
Nature of the filing
The supplied text is primarily a letter from the plaintiff’s counsel dated April 9, 2020, together with Judge Nathan’s April 20 order. The letter requested an informal conference under Local Civil Rule 37.2 concerning the plaintiff’s plan to seek an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4). That rule permits a court to order a deposition by telephone or another remote method.
Background
The filing described the COVID-19 pandemic and related limits on travel, in-person gatherings, and close contact. It argued that remote depositions would allow discovery to continue while reducing health and scheduling problems. The plaintiff’s counsel offered to accommodate witness schedules, arrange recording and a stenographer, provide the communication platform, and supply a computer and mobile internet connection if necessary.
According to the filing, the defendant did not agree to remote depositions. The railroad’s stated concerns included the security of videoconferencing platforms, uncertainty about who might be present with a witness, the ability to monitor what a witness might be consulting, employee illness, and whether proposed defense witnesses had suitable technology. The filing also stated that the railroad objected to conducting depositions until a later date that it would reassess.
Arguments about remote depositions
The plaintiff’s filing cited decisions stating that remote depositions should generally be allowed when the requesting party gives a legitimate reason and the opposing party does not make a particularized showing of prejudice. It argued that the pandemic supplied a legitimate reason and that available platforms could support testimony, exhibits, recording, and participation by counsel and a deposition officer. The filing also argued that the railroad should not be able to impose an indefinite hold on discovery.
These arguments appear in the plaintiff’s submission. The text supplied does not contain a ruling adopting or rejecting them, and it does not contain an order directing that any deposition be conducted remotely.
Ruling and effect
Judge Alison J. Nathan granted the request for a conference. The court ordered that the conference would take place as part of the Initial Pretrial Conference scheduled for May 27, 2020. The ruling addressed only the conference request shown in the text; it did not decide the underlying request for remote depositions or the merits of the lawsuit.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.