This isn't a surprising result, but it's still a good data point on attempting to force a post-COVID remote deposition.
In Etienne Maugain v. FCA US LLC, C.A. No. 22-116-JLH-SRF (D. Del. Jan. 15, 2025), the plaintiffs asked the defendant to take their deposition remotely, rather than in person, or to take the deposition where they reside (offering to reimburse travel costs). They cited cited medical conditions, dependent care obligations and work schedules. The defendant refused, and the parties ultimately brought cross motions to compel an in-person deposition in Delaware, and for a protective order to prevent such a deposition.
In their motion, the plaintiffs apparently dropped their objections on medical and dependent-care grounds, and focused exclusively on cost and efficiency issues. The Court easily rejected those, and ordered an in-person deposition in Delaware:
"[T]he general rule with respect to the location of depositions is that the plaintiff must produce its witnesses in the district in which the plaintiff instituted the action, unless [it] has shown financial hardship or inability to attend the deposition in that district." Invensas Corp. v. Renesas Elecs. Corp., C.A. No. 11-448-GMS-CJB, 2012 WL 2501106, at *2 (D. Del. June 27, 2012) . . . Plaintiffs have not shown hardship or an inability to attend their depositions in this district. During the parties' negotiations on the subject, Plaintiffs cited medical conditions, dependent care obligations and work schedules in support of their position that sitting for depositions in Delaware would cause "substantial stresses and burden." (D.I. 193) Plaintiffs do not cite any of these reasons in their responsive discovery dispute letter submission.
. . . Instead, Plaintiffs argue that the cost benefits and time efficiencies of remote depositions are reason enough to grant a protective order requiring depositions to be taken remotely. . . . Plaintiffs do not cite federal case authority from this district or within the Third Circuit suggesting that cost benefits and time efficiencies alone are sufficient to overcome the general rule that the plaintiff must produce its witnesses in the district in which the plaintiff instituted the action. The court is not persuaded to depart from the standard set forth in Invensas, which requires a showing of financial hardship or inability to attend an in-person deposition in this district.
Etienne Maugain v. FCA US LLC, C.A. No. 22-116-JLH-SRF, ¶¶ 3-6 (D. Del. Jan. 15, 2025).
It's interesting that the plaintiff dropped their medical and dependent-care based objections. But it's hard to say from the opinion whether those objections were baseless, or whether counsel dropped them to better fit into the outside-the-district precedent they cited (which the Court easily rejected).
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
