Opinion
2:18-cv-02286-JAD-NJK
08-25-2023
SAEID SAM KANGARLOU, Plaintiffs, v. ALTON AL LOCKLEAR, et al., Defendants.
ORDER [DOCKET NO. 110]
Nancy J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for an order that Plaintiff must appear for deposition. Docket No. 110. Plaintiff filed a response, indicating that he does not object to appearing for a deposition in the future. Docket No. 111 at 8; see also Id. at 19.
Given Plaintiff's agreement to be deposed moving forward, the Court need not resolve the other issues raised by Plaintiff.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to appear for deposition by September 27, 2023. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS. E.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). The parties must immediately confer on a date, time, and place for the deposition. The deposition must be taken in person.
Remote depositions are permitted when the parties stipulate or the Court so orders. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(4). Plaintiff has not agreed to a remote deposition and Defendants have not provided the showing necessary for an order requiring one. Even were Defendants to try to make such a showing in reply, moreover, the Court would not entertain that argument. See Brand v. Kijakazi, 575 F.Supp.3d 1265, 1273 (D. Nev. 2021).
Defendants' motion is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.