Kangarlou v. Locklear

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7| SAEID SAM KANGARLOU, Case No. 2:18-cv-02286-JAD-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9] v. [Docket No. 110] 10] ALTON AL LOCKLEAR, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for an order that Plaintiff must appear for 13] deposition. Docket No. 110. Plaintiff filed a response, indicating that he does not object to 14] appearing for a deposition in the future. Docket No. 111 at 8; see also id. at 19. 15 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to appear for deposition by September 27, 2023. 16] FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS. £.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). The parties must immediately confer on a date, time, and place for the deposition. The deposition must be taken in person.’ 19 Defendants’ motion is DENIED as moot. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: August 25, 2023

Nancy J Koppe 23 United States-Magistrate Judge 24) ' Given Plaintiff's agreement to be deposed moving forward, the Court need not resolve 25] the other issues raised by Plaintiff. 26 ? Remote depositions are permitted when the parties stipulate or the Court so orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4). Plaintiff has not agreed to a remote deposition and Defendants have not 27| provided the showing necessary for an order requiring one. Even were Defendants to try to make such a showing in reply, moreover, the Court would not entertain that argument. See Brand v. Kijakazi, 575 F. Supp. 3d 1265, 1273 (D. Nev. 2021).