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 …
