Denies defendants’ unopposed motion to stay dates for discovery until at least May 15, noting that “many sectors of society are being forced to adapt,” and instead extends the deadlines for discovery by four weeks in light of logistical challenges. In re Duramax Diesel Litigation…
Type of Order: Case-Specific, Discovery Deadlines
Denying Defendants’ Motion to Compel Appearance of Plaintiff for Deposition in Louisiana and approving conducting Plaintiff’s deposition by telephone or videoconference, finding extreme hardship with respect to travel for Plaintiff’s deposition given Plaintiff’s economic situation and the coronavirus outbreak. Thomas v. Wallace (M.D. La. March…
Type of Order: Case-Specific, Depositions
Denying a motion to extend discovery beyond June due to COVID-19 in patent case, without prejudice. Infernal Technology v. Sony (E.D. Tx. March 27, 2020)
Type of Order: Case-Specific, Discovery Deadlines
Denying motion to quash deposition notices, finding depositions can be taken remotely by video. Hecker v. Western Tidewater Regional Jail Authority, et al. (E.D. Va., Mar. 23, 2020)
Type of Order: Case-Specific, Depositions
Provides that all depositions may be taken via telephone, videoconference, or other remote means; extends all unexpired deadlines for a period of 30 days. In re Keurig Order re Remote Depositions (SDNY March 16, 2020)
Type of Order: Case-Specific, Depositions
Provides that all depositions may be taken by telephone, videoconference, or other remote means, and recorded by any reliable audio or audiovisual method, and encourages remote conferencing by attorneys to move the matter forward. Sinceno v. Riverside Church (SDNY March 18, 2020)
Type of Order: Case-Specific, Depositions
In lieu of in-person conference, lays out court’s concerns regarding proposed settlement and directs parties to submit updated papers to address said concerns; does not set deadline for submission, stating “in light of the current health crisis, it is simply not prudent to fix dates…
Type of Order: Case-Specific, Remote Proceedings
Provides that all fact witness depositions in case shall go forward by utilizing telephone, video, or other means that does not require in person attendance; excludes plaintiffs, experts, and treating medical providers and sets future date by which to reconsider use of video depositions for…
Type of Order: Case-Specific, Depositions
Orders plaintiffs’ counsel to make plaintiffs available for depositions by telephone or video and directs that any “expert, corporate representative or fact witness” that must be deposed “should also have video or telephonic opportunity made available,” but advises parties to “ascertain the necessity” of completing…
Type of Order: Case-Specific, Depositions
On page 12 of pdf, court addresses defendant’s objection to taking of remote depositions during pandemic: “strongly urges all counsel during this time, to explore alternatives, that under different circumstances, would be unimaginable (remote depositions via telephone or videoconferencing).” Schulte v. Park Reserve, LLC Discovery…
Type of Order: Case-Specific, Depositions
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
This website uses Google Analytics to collect anonymous information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.
Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.
Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!
More information about our Cookie Policy
