Cavanaugh v. County of San Diego

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: May 7, 2020
• Docket: 3:18-cv-02557
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANE CAVANAUGH, et al. Case No.: 18cv2557-BEN-LL 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER FOLLOWING DISCOVERY CONFERENCE ON MAY 6, 2020 13 v. 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On May 6, 2020, the Court held a telephonic attorneys-only discovery conference to 19 discuss certain disputes. ECF No. 42. In preparation for the call, the Court ordered each 20 party to lodge and exchange a brief statement setting forth their respective positions and 21 supporting legal authority. The Court reviewed the statements and discussed them with the 22 parties during the discovery conference. Based on the statements and the parties’ 23 representations during the conference, the Court issues this order regarding depositions. 24 Due to the current physical distancing orders in place for the coronavirus pandemic, 25 Plaintiffs would like to conduct depositions of Defendants remotely by videoconference. 26 Defendants oppose remote depositions of Defendants and wish to continue the fact 27 discovery deadline because in-person depositions may be possible at a later time. 28 Defendants claim they will be prejudiced by remote depositions because they are not 1 sophisticated deponents with substantial deposition experience and defense counsel will be 2 unable to prepare them in person for important depositions. Defendants further claim they 3 will be prejudiced because defense counsel will not be present in person with Defendants 4 during the depositions and because the confidentiality of the depositions will be 5 jeopardized by having to conduct remote depositions from homes with other people 6 present. 7 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that “[t]he parties may stipulate—or the 8 court may on motion order—that a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote 9 means.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4). A showing of extraordinary circumstances is not required 10 in a motion for remote depositions and “leave should be liberally granted in appropriate 11 cases.” Kaseberg v. Conaco, LLC, No. 15cv01637-JLS-DHB, 2016 WL 8729927, at *5 12 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2016) (quoting Jahr v. IU Int'l Corp., 109 F.R.D. 429, 431 (M.D.N.C. 13 1986)). “Thus, upon giving a legitimate reason for taking a deposition [remotely], the 14 movant need not further show an extraordinary need for the deposition.” Id. (quoting 15 Jahr v. IU Int'l Corp., 109 F.R.D. at 431). “Once the movant gives a legitimate reason, the 16 burden is on the party opposing the motion to show that it will suffer prejudice if the motion 17 is granted.” Id. at *6. 18 The Court finds that the physical distancing orders related to the current pandemic 19 are a legitimate reason for holding depositions remotely. Defendants, however, have failed 20 to meet their burden to show prejudice. The Court finds that defense counsel may 21 adequately prepare Defendants for the depositions by videoconference and telephone. 22 Defense counsel will be able to attend the depositions remotely in support of Defendants 23 and need not be with them in person because all participants will be remote. The Court also 24 finds that deponents should be able to find a space at their residence to conduct the 25 depositions in private. During this pandemic, attorneys and litigants are adapting to new 26 ways to practice law, including preparing for and conducting depositions remotely. 27 Grano v. Sodexo Mgmt., Inc., No. 18cv1818-GPC(BLM), 2020 WL 1975057, at *3 & n.5 28 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2020) (collecting cases). Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants 1 || will not be prejudiced by remote videoconference depositions. See id. (rejecting arguments 2 preparing for and conducting remote depositions would be unworkable). 3 The Court had previously extended fact discovery by about sixty days to 4 || May 29, 2020 for the sole purpose of completing depositions and the jail inspection due to 5 ||concerns about community spread of COVID-19. ECF No. 41. The Court declines to 6 further extend fact discovery on pure speculation that in-person depositions will soon be 7 || possible. The depositions shall be completed by May 29, 2020 by remote videoconference. 8 || If certain remote depositions cannot be completed by the close of fact discovery, the parties 9 || shall file a motion seeking an extension and setting forth good cause as to each deposition. 10 IT ISSO ORDERED. 11 ||Dated: May 7, 2020 XO 12 CE | 13 Honorable Linda Lopez 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28