Farahmand v. Local Properties, Inc.

5 Citing cases

  1. Myers v. Dolgencorp, Inc.

    Case No. 04-4137-JAR (D. Kan. Jan. 25, 2006)

    588 N.Y.S.2d 76 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1992). 88 F.R.D. 80 (N.D. Ga. 1980). No. 90 CIV. 6638(CSH), 1991 WL 206279 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 1991). 588 N.Y.S.2d at 81.

  2. Rice's Toyota World, Inc. v. Southeast Toyota Distributors, Inc.

    114 F.R.D. 647 (M.D.N.C. 1987)   Cited 26 times
    Refusing to limit video depositions to important witnesses who might be unavailable for trial since plaintiff was not requesting that regular stenographer be dispensed with, thus sharply reducing risks of video deposition

    The reported decisions permitting video depositions have mostly involved a key witness who is, or likely may be, unavailable for trial. Lucien v. McLennand, supra -(plaintiff inmate unavailable); United States v. Trucis, 89 F.R.D. 671 (E.D.Pa.1981)-(witnesses in Soviet Union); Farahmand v. Local Properties, Inc., 88 F.R.D. 80 (N.D.Ga.1980)-(essential witness unavailable); Tsesmelys v. Dublin Truck Leasing, 78 F.R.D. 181 (E.D.Tenn.1976)-(plaintiff's expert witness likely unavailable); Continental Federal S. & L. Ass'n v. Delta Corp., 71 F.R.D. 697, 702 (W.D.Okla.1976)-(important witness unavailable); and Matter of Daniels, supra -(key witness potentially unavailable); but seeWestmoreland v. CBS, Inc., 584 F.Supp. 1206 (D.C.1984), aff'd, 770 F.2d 1168 (D.C.Cir.1985)-(concern video deposition may be used to harass non-party witness). Video depositions have also been authorized in order to permit the witness to reconstruct an accident.

  3. S.C. Elec. Gas Co. v. Ranger Const. Co., Inc.

    539 F. Supp. 578 (D.S.C. 1982)   Cited 5 times

    The only authority found by the Court indicates that the dismissal of a non-diverse defendant will perfect jurisdiction and relate back to the time of the filing of the suit, even where the statute of limitations has run. See e.g. Baker v. J. C. Penney Co., Inc., 496 F. Supp. 922 (N.D.Ga. 1980); Farahmand v. Local Properties, Inc., 88 F.R.D. 80 (N.D.Ga. 1980); O'Neal v. National Cylinder Gas Co., 103 F. Supp. 720 (N.D.Ill. 1952). This Court is of the opinion that the law and equities in this case require a determination that a dismissal of Ranger as a party-defendant will establish diversity of citizenship jurisdiction with retroactive effect.

  4. Inhofe v. Wiseman

    1989 OK 41 (Okla. 1989)   Cited 12 times
    Permitting videotaped deposition but imposing protective order to prevent non-litigation use

    Here, the brother stated that he intended to show the videotape to the investigators, who he had hired to aid him in this case, because they would not be allowed to be present at the actual taking of the deposition.Rice's Toyota World Inc. v. S.E. Toyota Distrib., Inc., 114 F.R.D. 647, 650 (M.D.N.C. 1987); Roberts v. Homelite Div., 109 F.R.D. 664, 667 (N.D. Ind. 1986); United States v. Trucis, 89 F.R.D. 671, 674 (E.D.Penn. 1981); Farahmand v. Local Properties, Inc., 88 F.R.D. 80, 83-4 (N.D.Ga. 1980); Carson v. Burlington N., Inc., 52 F.R.D. 492-93 (D.Neb. 1971). Title 12 O.S.Supp. 1982 ยง 3203[ 12-3203](C) provides in pertinent part:

  5. State ex Rel. Bennett v. Keadle

    175 W. Va. 505 (W. Va. 1985)   Cited 8 times
    Stating that in the context of a deposition "a transcript may provide a check on the accuracy of the videotape, and vice versa, if either is introduced at trial."

    Given these benefits, we believe it would be improper to focus exclusively on the cost-savings rationale, although we hope that application of Rule 30(b)(4) will have the added effect of diminishing expenses. See, e.g., Lucien v. McLennand, 95 F.R.D. 525 (N.D.Ill. 1982) (deponent incarcerated); Farahmand v. Local Properties, Inc., 88 F.R.D. 80 (N.D.Ga. 1980) (deponent residing in Iran); United States v. LaFatch, 382 F. Supp. 630 (N.D.Ohio 1974) (deponent hospitalized); Carson v. Burlington Northern, 52 F.R.D. 492 (D.Neb. 1971) (immovable steel press alleged to have injured plaintiff demonstrated for jury on videotape). A final observation is that the parties may avail themselves of Rule 29 to stipulate any deposition procedures that are mutually acceptable, including the use of videotape and the procedures they deem necessary to guarantee the accuracy of the record.