Opinion
Civ. No. 99-2227-GTV.
March 3, 2000.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Modify Order (doc. 82). After reviewing the briefs and hearing oral argument of Plaintiff pro se and counsel, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Motion.
In their Motion, Defendants ask the Court to impose the same restrictions upon Plaintiff's deposition that the Court imposed on Defendant Michael Merriam's deposition. See Memorandum and Order of February 9, 2000 (doc. 79). That Memorandum and Order, among other things, restricted the use that could be made of the videotaped deposition. Defendants also ask the Court to impose the same restrictions on videotaping that the Court handed down at during a telephone hearing on February 11, 2000, relating to Mr. Merriam's deposition. At that time, the Court instructed the parties on certain aspects of how the deposition was to be videotaped.
The Court does not find that the same privacy interests exist here that existed with respect to Mr. Merriam's deposition. Plaintiff is the party requesting to videotape his own deposition. He has made it clear that he is not concerned with protecting any privacy interests he may have. Furthermore, Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(3) allows a party to videotape his/her own deposition. That rule provides that with prior notice to the deponent and parties, any party may designate another method to record the deponent's testimony in addition to the method specified by the party taking the deposition. In light of the above, the Court will deny Defendants' Motion to the extent it requests the Court to impose restrictions on the use of the deposition similar to those set forth in the Court's Memorandum and Order of February 9, 2000.
While the Court will decline to impose any restrictions on the use of Mr. Drake's videotaped deposition, the Court does find that certain standards should be followed as to the videotaping of the deposition. The Court will therefore impose on Plaintiff's deposition the same rules that the Court handed down at the February 11, 2000 telephone hearing regarding Mr. Merriam's deposition. The Court will reiterate those rules here: The videotape shall run only while the deposition is in session and shall run continuously throughout the active conduct of the deposition. The videotape shall not run during "off the record" discussions, while the deposition is in recess, after a party has moved to terminate the deposition, or after termination of the deposition. The video camera shall stay focused on the deponent at all times, except at the beginning of the deposition when the camera may, during introductions of those individuals attending the deposition, briefly focus on each individual present.
These rules shall apply to Plaintiff's deposition and to any other deposition that is videotaped in this case. Nothing in this Order shall prevent a party from seeking additional protection regarding the videotaping of any future depositions.
Defendant's Motion to Modify Order (doc. 82) is hereby denied in part and granted in part. Plaintiff's deposition may be videotaped, but only under the conditions set forth herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated in Kansas City, Kansas on this 3rd day of March, 2000.
cc: All counsel and pro se parties
LIONEL Q DRAKE, plaintiff
Lionel Q Drake [COR LD NTC] [PRO SE] 4900 S.W. 28th St. Topeka, KS 66614 785-228-9912
v. BENEDEK BROADCASTING CORPORATION, defendant
Michael W. Merriam [COR LD NTC] Gehrt Roberts, Chartered 5601 S.W. Barrington Ct., South P. O. Box 4306 Topeka, KS 66604 785-273-7722 FTS 273-8560
GEHRT ROBERTS, CHARTERED, defendant
David W. Hauber [COR LD NTC] Boddington Brown, Chtd. 100 Security Bank Building 707 Minnesota Avenue Kansas City, KS 66101 913-371-1272 FTS 371-5726
Mark A. Buck [COR LD NTC] Fairchild, Haney Buck, P.A. 5851 S.W. 29th St.-Ste. 1 Topeka, KS 66614-2463 785-235-2200 FTS 235-8950
MICHAEL W MERRIAM, defendant
David W. Hauber (See above) [COR LD NTC] Mark A. Buck (See above) [COR LD NTC]