Robinson v. De Niro

Background

Canal Productions, Inc. requested a pre-motion conference because it wanted a protective order. The requested order would have prevented Graham Chase Robinson from video-recording Robert De Niro’s upcoming deposition or, alternatively, from disseminating, disclosing, or filing the recording—or any excerpt—on the public docket after the deposition. Robinson opposed the request, arguing that Canal had not first met and conferred with Robinson’s counsel as required by the court’s practices and local rules. Robinson also argued that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(3) generally permits audiovisual deposition recording and that video is useful for preserving testimony for trial.

Legal framework

Rule 30(b)(3) allows the party noticing a deposition to choose audio, audiovisual, or stenographic recording, unless the court orders otherwise. Rule 26(c) allows a protective order to protect a party from discovery causing annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression. On a showing of good cause, a court may prevent videotaping or impose other protections. The court also noted that the parties must meet and confer before seeking a protective order.

Court’s analysis

Canal relied mainly on a prior case involving the musician Prince. In that case, the court did not prohibit video recording but restricted use of the video to purposes connected with the litigation. Here, the court recognized that De Niro is a famous movie star and that Robinson had spoken with the press about the case and about working for De Niro. But the court held that De Niro was not entitled to special treatment under the federal rules because of his celebrity. It also noted that video depositions are routine and can better convey facial expressions, voice inflection, and gestures than a transcript alone. The court concluded that concerns about unwanted publicity did not establish good cause to prohibit video recording, which could be used at trial for impeachment or if De Niro could not testify.

The existing protective order already allowed defendants to designate deposition portions as confidential and provided that confidential information could be used only for this litigation. If Canal designated the deposition confidential, Robinson could not republish the transcript or video and could use it only in connection with the case. The court therefore found that the protection warranted was already in place.

Disposition

The court denied Canal’s motion at ECF No. 137. To the extent Canal sought an order requiring deposition material used in the litigation to be filed under seal, the court denied that request as premature. The parties may seek sealing later if they offer deposition material in connection with motions or trial, and any request will be evaluated under the standards governing public access to judicial documents.