De-Anna Taijeron v. Ugochukwu Akoma

• Court: District Court, D. Guam
• Decided: November 19, 2025
• Docket: 1:23-cv-00023
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM 7 8 DE-ANNA TAIJERON, ) CIVIL CASE NO. 23-00023 ) Plaintiff, ) 9 ) vs. ) ORDER 10 ) Granting Motion for Entry of Protective UGOCHUKWU AKOMA, ) Order to Allow Plaintiff to Appear Via 11 ) Video for Deposition (ECF No. 40) Defendant. ) 12 ) 13 14 Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of a Protective Order seeking leave 15 of court to permit the Plaintiff to appear remotely for her deposition. See ECF No. 40. Having 16 reviewed the relevant filings and finding good cause as discussed below, the court grants the motion 17 and allows the Plaintiff's deposition to occur remotely by video conference. 18 DISCUSSION 19 This is an action where the Plaintiff alleges she was sexually assaulted by the Defendant.1 The 20 Plaintiff relocated to the mainland United States, and the Defendant sought to depose the Plaintiff 21 on Guam. The Plaintiff moved for a protective order under Rules 26(c)(1) and 30(b)(4) of the 22 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting that traveling to Guam for the deposition will “undermine 23 her treatment and place at risk her mental health.” Mem. Supp. Mot. Protective Order at 2, ECF 24 No. 40-1. She asks that she be permitted to appear for a video deposition in lieu of an in-person 25 26 1 The alleged assault occurred during a period when the Plaintiff claimed she was seeking 27 treatment from the Defendant (a medical doctor) for depression and anxiety arising from a past sexual assault – a rape while she was a child that continued to haunt her into adulthood. See Compl. 28 at ¶ 6. 1 deposition and claims that “appearing in person in front of her abuser will exacerbate her Major 2 Depressive Disorder and PTSD.” Id. 3 1. Legal Standard 4 Rule 30 governs depositions by oral examination and provides that a party who wishes to 5 depose an individual may choose the time, place and manner of the deposition. See Fed. R. Civ. 6 P. 30(b)(1). Usually, “depositions should be taken in the district where the action is being litigated.” 7 Lexington Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 1999 WL 33292943, *9 (N. D. Cal. Sept. 17, 1999) 8 (quoting Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Dacar Chem. Prods., Co., 707 F. Supp. 793, 795 (W.D. Pa. 9 1989)). “As a general rule, ‘plaintiff will be required to make himself or herself available for 10 examination in the district in which suit was brought.’” Id. (quoting 8A Charles Alan Wright & 11 Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, § 2112 (3d ed.)). However, “[t]he parties may 12 stipulate – or the court may on motion order – that a deposition be taken by telephone or other 13 remote means.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4). 14 “Leave to permit remote depositions should generally be granted liberally.” Brower v. 15 McDonald’s Corp., No. 2:19-cv-02099-GMN-BNW, 2021 WL 3573633, at *2 (D. Nev. May 28, 16 2021). In determining whether to grant a request for a remote deposition, courts follow a two-step 17 process: (1) the proponent must present a legitimate reason for seeking a remote deposition; and 18 (2) if the movant establishes a legitimate reason, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to make 19 a particularized showing of prejudice that would result from a remote deposition. Id.; Richardson 20 v. Grey, No. 1:23-CV-00375-DCN, 2025 WL 843768, at *2 (D. Idaho Mar. 18, 2025). 21 A party may also petition the court for a protective order after certifying that said party has 22 in good faith attempted to resolve the discovery dispute without the need for court intervention. See 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). “The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person 24 from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense[.]” Id. A court may 25 impose various conditions, including “specifying terms, including time and place . . ., for the 26 disclosure or discovery,” “prescribing a discovery method other than the one selected by the party 27 seeking discovery,” or “designating the persons who may be present while the discovery is 28 conducted[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(B)-(C) and (E). 1 2. Analysis 2 In this case, the Plaintiff asserts that her mental health conditions are exacerbated by the 3 prospect of return to Guam for her deposition and being confronted by the Defendant. In support 4 of her assertion, the Plaintiff’s motion includes a note from the Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist dated 5 August 13, 2025. See Ex. A to Mem. Supp. Mot. Protective Order, ECF No. 40-2. The doctor states 6 that it is his 7 professional opinion that [the Plaintiff] would have significant worsening symptoms of Depression and PTSD if she is asked to testify or be deposed in front of the 8 accused / her alleged assailant. I recommend any interviewing or deposition be obtained by a secured form of video teleconference. Return to Guam would be a 9 potential trigger for increased symptoms. 10 Id. 11 The Defendant claims no good causes exists for a remote deposition since the Plaintiff flew 12 to Guam to testify at the related criminal trial in 2024 and never complained about any mental health 13 concerns then. The Defendant’s argument about the Plaintiff’s condition last year does not diminish 14 the treating psychiatrist’s professional opinion about the Plaintiff’s current mental health status. The 15 court finds that the Plaintiff has presented a legitimate reason supporting her request for a remote 16 deposition. The burden now shifts to the Defendant to make a particularized showing that he will 17 be prejudiced if the court permits the deposition to be conducted remotely. 18 The Defendant contends he will be prejudiced by a remote deposition because counsel will 19 not be able to accurately assess the Plaintiff’s credibility because “[v]ideo feed flattens non-verbal 20 cues (e.g. hesitations, agitations) [that] are vital for sexual assault claims.” Def.’s Opp’n at 4, ECF 21 No. 43. The Defendant also claims there is “danger of coaching by other during the deposition.” The 22 court notes, however, that counsel for the Defendant is free to travel to North Carolina to conduct 23 the Plaintiff’s deposition personally, and this should allay the concerns raised by the Defendant. 24 Since the COVID-19 pandemic, “remote video conferencing has become a standard means of taking 25 depositions.” Wag Hotels, Inc. v. Wag Labs, Inc., No. 20CV01326BLFVKD, 2022 WL 4133297, 26 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2022). The court finds that the Defendant has failed meet his burden of 27 showing prejudice would result from a remote deposition. While a remote deposition may not 28 always be appropriate, it is warranted here when comparing the parties’ competing interests and the De-Anna Taijeron v. Ugochukwu Akoma, Civil Case No. 23-00023 Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order page 4 of 4 1 || impact an in-person deposition on Guam will have on the Plaintiff's mental health, particularly at 2 || this stage of the proceedings. 3 Accordingly, the court grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order. The court orders 4 || that if the Defendant notices the Plaintiff's deposition to occur on Guam, the Plaintiff may appear 5 || for said deposition remotely by video conference. Counsel for the Defendant also has the option of 6 || noticing the deposition to take place at a mutually agreeable time in North Carolina, where the 7 || Plaintiff now resides, and counsel can travel to North Carolina for the deposition. However, the 8 || court further orders that the Defendant must not attend the Plaintiff's deposition, whether in person 9 || or remotely.’ 10 Finally, the court cautions the Plaintiff that if this matter proceeds to trial, the Plaintiff is 11 || expected to travel to Guam and appear at the jury trial in person. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. ON /s/ Michael J. Bordallo 14 Rae U.S. Magistrate Judge Kany 4 Dated: Nov 19, 2025

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 a7h0Ci‘i;;*;™WS > The court notes that in his Opposition, the Defendant agrees that he “will not attend 28 || Plaintiff's deposition” thus “eliminating confrontation.” Def.’s Opp’n at 3, ECF No. 43.