DArezzo v. Appel
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:22-cv-00177
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In D’Arezzo v. Appel, Judge Aaron ordered remote depositions because appearing in person would impose substantial hardship on D’Arezzo.
Angela D’Arezzo, Catherine Appel, and Overtime Dance Foundation, Inc.; the order governs the format of their depositions.
What happened
In D’Arezzo v. Appel, Angela D’Arezzo asked the court to allow the parties’ depositions to occur remotely because she has advanced muscular dystrophy and is functionally immobile. Catherine Appel and Overtime Dance Foundation, Inc. asked the court to require D’Arezzo to attend an in-person deposition.
The court found that attending in person would impose significant hardship on D’Arezzo. It found the defendants’ concerns about technology, dishonesty, obstruction, and evaluating D’Arezzo’s demeanor did not outweigh that hardship. The court noted that D’Arezzo had used Zoom before and that video would allow the defendants to see her demeanor.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron ordered that D’Arezzo’s deposition be conducted remotely. He also ordered that the other parties’ depositions be conducted remotely unless the parties agree to a reasonable in-person alternative.
The detailed version
- DArezzo v. Appel · No. 1:22-cv-00177
- Stewart Aaron
- Feb. 8, 2024
Background
The court addressed a dispute over the location of Angela D’Arezzo’s deposition. D’Arezzo requested remote depositions, stating that she has advanced muscular dystrophy and is functionally immobile. Catherine Appel and Overtime Dance Foundation, Inc. requested an in-person deposition at their offices or another reasonable location.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4) allows a court to order a deposition by telephone or other remote means. The court applied a discretionary balancing test, weighing the hardship to the person being deposed against potential prejudice to the other side.
Analysis
The court found that an in-person deposition would create significant hardship for D’Arezzo. The defendants raised concerns about possible logistical or technological problems during a remote deposition. The court found those concerns were limited because D’Arezzo had previously used Zoom and indicated that her home health aide could help her use the computer. The court directed the parties to discuss in advance how exhibits would be displayed and how to address other anticipated technology issues.
The defendants also argued that D’Arezzo might be dishonest or obstruct the deposition and that an in-person deposition was needed to evaluate her demeanor. The court found that the defendants had not specifically shown that anticipated obstruction was likely or disruptive enough to require an in-person deposition. It also concluded that a video deposition would allow the defendants to view D’Arezzo’s demeanor, resulting in minimal prejudice to them.
Order
The court ordered that D’Arezzo’s deposition be conducted remotely. It further ordered that any other party depositions be conducted remotely unless the parties agree to a reasonable in-person alternative.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.