Opinion
8:22CV194
01-12-2024
KELLI FLOREK, Plaintiff, v. CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY, KATIE WADAS-THALKEN, RHONDA JONES, and MARYANN SKRABAL, Defendants.
ORDER
MICHAEL D. NELSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court following a telephone conference held with counsel for the parties on January 12, 2024, before the undersigned magistrate judge. Defendant requested the telephone conference to address the parties' dispute regarding whether Plaintiff should be required to travel to Omaha to sit for her deposition in person. As stated on the record, the Court finds Plaintiff demonstrated legitimate reasons for seeking a remote deposition, including several health conditions and the difficulties those conditions present for her to travel to Omaha, Nebraska, from the Big Island, Hawaii. Defendants' desire to take Plaintiff's deposition in person to assess her credibility and body language can be addressed by a videoconference deposition. Defendants may also travel to Hawaii to take Plaintiff's deposition in person, but not at Plaintiff's cost. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(4) (providing, “[t]he parties may stipulate-or the court may on motion order-that a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote means.”); Doe v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Nebraska, No. 4:21CV3049, 2022 WL 17343852, at *4 (D. Neb. Nov. 30, 2022).
IT IS SO ORDERED.