From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Escuted v. Dermaclinic N.Y.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Dec 21, 2022
22 Civ. 10685 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2022)

Opinion

22 Civ. 10685 (AT)

12-21-2022

KATHLEEN ESCUTED, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. Plaintiff, v. DERMACLINIC NEW YORK LLC, VERONICA ALMEIDA, JANE DOE A/K/A “NIDI”, Defendants.


ORDER

ANALISA TORRES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

To protect the public health, while promoting the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 1, it is ORDERED pursuant to Rules 30(b)(3) and 30(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that all depositions in this action may be taken via telephone, videoconference, or other remote means. It is further ORDERED pursuant to Rule 30(b)(5) that a deposition will be deemed to have taken place “before an officer appointed or designated under Rule 28” if such officer attends the deposition using the same remote means used to connect all other participants, so long as all participants (including the officer) can clear ly hear and be heard by all other-participants. The parties are encouraged to engage in discovery through remote means at every available opportunity.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Escuted v. Dermaclinic N.Y.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Dec 21, 2022
22 Civ. 10685 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2022)
Case details for

Escuted v. Dermaclinic N.Y.

Case Details

Full title:KATHLEEN ESCUTED, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Dec 21, 2022

Citations

22 Civ. 10685 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2022)