Martinez v. University of San Diego

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 6, 2023
• Docket: 3:20-cv-01946
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 In re University of San Diego Case No.: 20-cv-1946-LAB-WVG Tuition and Fees COVID-19 12 Refund Litigation ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY 13 DISPUTE RAISED JANUARY 6, 2023; REMOTE DEPOSITIONS OF 14 This document relates to: PLAINTIFFS CATHERINE 15 All Actions HOLDEN AND EDGAR CHAVARRIA 16 17 18 On January 6, 2023, pursuant to Judge William V. Gallo’s Chamber Rule IV, the 19 Parties jointly contacted the Court’s Chambers seeking the Court’s adjudication for a 20 discovery dispute raised by Defendant. The Court convened a Discovery Conference 21 shortly after. (ECF No. 79.) Michael A. Tompkins and Yvette Golan appeared on behalf of 22 Plaintiffs. Michael C. Sullivan appeared on behalf of Defendant. The dispute implicates in- 23 person depositions of Plaintiffs Haley Martinez, Matthew Sheridan, Catherine Holden, and 24 Edgar Chavarria noticed by Defendant. Plaintiffs objected to the in-person appearances due 25 to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and burden related to in-person depositions, arguing 26 the depositions can adequately occur remotely. 27 During the Discovery Conference, Plaintiffs’ counsel represented they had come to 28 an agreement with Defendants and that the deposition of Plaintiff Haley Martinez would 1 |}occur in person in Philadelphia. Defendant’s counsel also represented Defendant was 2 || willing to accommodate Plaintiff Matthew Sheridan’s request for a remote deposition due 3 his health condition. Plaintiff's counsel agreed that Plaintiff Matthew Sheridan’s 4 || deposition would occur remotely. 5 Having heard from counsel for the Parties, the Court finds the dispute regarding 6 || Plaintiffs Haley Martinez and Matthew Sheridan’s depositions have been resolved and is 7 ripe for adjudication. As to Plaintiffs Catherine Holden and Edgar Chavarria’s 8 ||depositions, the Court finds Plaintiff's objections to in-person depositions to be 9 || appropriate. 10 Courts in the Ninth Circuit have routinely authorized depositions to proceed 11 |/remotely in light of the COVID-19 Pandemic. See, e.g Grano v. Sodexo Management, Inc., 12 ||335 F.R.D. 411, 415 (S.D. Cal. 2020) (“Attorneys and litigants all over the country are 13 || adapting to a new way of practicing law, including conducting depositions and deposition 14 || preparation remotely.”); Swenson v. GEICO Cas. Co., 336 F.R.D. 206, 210 (D. Nev. 2020) 15 || (observing “courts within the Ninth Circuit routinely highlight remote depositions as an 16 effective and appropriate means to keep cases moving forward notwithstanding pandemic- 17 related restrictions”). The Southern District of California continues to operate pursuant to 18 emergency declaration announced under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 19 || Security Act (“CARES Act’). Remote depositions continue to be a prudent and effective 20 || way to conduct discovery. 21 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the depositions of Plaintiffs Catherine Holden and 22 ||Edgar Chavarria to be conducted remotely, at a date and time to be agreed upon by the 23 || Parties and their counsel. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || DATED: January 6, 2023 | / UY Se 26 Hon. William V. Gallo 57 United States Magistrate Judge 28