Garland v. Clinchfield Railroad

89 F.R.D. 551, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11451

• Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee
• Decided: March 5, 1981
• Docket: No. CIV-2-80-41
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

NEESE, District Judge.

The plaintiff moved the Court for an order that the testimony at deposition of 2 named persons be recorded by other than stenographic means. Rule 30(b)(4), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Any such order is required inter alia to “ * * * designate the person before whom the deposition shall be taken * * Idem. The purpose of this requirement is “ * * * to encourage the naming of the recording technician as that person, eliminating the necessity of the presence of one whose only function is to administer the oath. * * * ” Advisory Committee Note to Rule 30(b)(4), supra, reprinted in 80 F.R.D. 323, 337.

Since the plaintiff failed to specify the person¹ before whom he proposes to take the depositions, the Court is unable to comply with the provisions of Rule 30(b)(4), supra, and for such reason, the motion hereby is

DENIED.²

1 . The Court does not consider Multi Video Service, Inc. to be a “person” within the meaning of Rule 30(b)(4), supra. The Advisory Committee Note, supra, seems to contemplate the naming of an individual, not a corporate, party.

2 . Before seeking an order of the Court under Rule 30(b)(4), supra, the parties should attempt to stipulate these matters. That rule was amended “ * * * to encourage parties to agree to the use of electronic recording of depositions. * * * ” Advisory Committee Note, supra.