Rouviere v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.

Background

This case concerns alleged injuries that Jodi Rouviere sustained after receiving a purportedly defective hip implant containing components manufactured by Howmedica Osteonics Corporation, doing business as Stryker Orthopaedics, and Defendant DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. The opinion addresses a discovery dispute, not the underlying product-liability claims.

The plaintiffs asked the court to require Howmedica’s corporate representative or representatives to attend an in-person deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). That rule allows a party to designate an organization to provide one or more representatives to testify about matters identified in a deposition notice. Alternatively, the plaintiffs asked to extend the fact-discovery deadline until an in-person deposition could take place.

The plaintiffs said they had rented a recreational vehicle and intended to drive from Florida to New Jersey for the deposition. Howmedica opposed the request, arguing that its witness and counsel would face health risks from an in-person deposition and advocating for a videoconference deposition. The opinion also notes that the court had already granted several extensions of the discovery deadlines and had set August 21, 2020, as the deadline for completing fact depositions.

Legal standard

Under Rule 30(b)(4), a court may order a deposition to occur by telephone or other remote means. The court stated that deciding whether to require a remote deposition is within its discretion and requires balancing the hardship to the person or party being deposed against the prejudice to the party seeking the deposition.

Analysis

The court found that an in-person deposition during the COVID-19 public-health emergency would create significant health risks for Howmedica’s representatives, Howmedica’s counsel, and the plaintiffs’ counsel. It also concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown sufficient prejudice from using videoconference technology. The plaintiffs’ main stated concern was that the deposition would be document-intensive, but the court found that exhibits could be shared electronically or provided to the witness beforehand.

The court recognized that handling exhibits remotely could cause delays. To address that concern, it allowed an additional hour for the deposition, increasing the maximum duration from seven hours under Rule 30(d)(1) to eight hours. The court also rejected the concern that counsel could not observe the witness adequately from a distance, reasoning that a witness wearing a mask at an in-person deposition could make observing the witness’s full face more difficult than a remote deposition from the witness’s home.

The court further found that postponing discovery until an in-person deposition became possible would be unworkable and could indefinitely delay the case. It therefore concluded that a videoconference deposition would best serve the goal of resolving the case fairly, quickly, and inexpensively.

Ruling

Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied the plaintiffs’ Letter Motion. The court ordered that Howmedica’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition be conducted by videoconference no later than August 21, 2020, and that it last no more than eight hours. The court also ordered the plaintiffs and Howmedica to share equally the additional expenses caused by conducting the deposition remotely. The parties were directed to meet and confer about selecting a firm and determining the additional expenses; if they could not agree, they were to submit their respective positions to the court.