From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peru v. City of New York

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jan 26, 2024
24 Civ. 482 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2024)

Opinion

24 Civ. 482 (AT)

01-26-2024

CRAIG PERU, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE MOORE, DETECTIVE COMISKY, DETECTIVE EMBROZIO, DETECTIVE JOHN DOE 1, POLICE OFFICER VICTORIA LYNCH, SHIELD #13203, POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE 2, POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE 3, POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE 4, and POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE 5, Defendants.


ORDER

ANALISA TORRES, 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 clearly 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

Peru v. City of New York

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jan 26, 2024
24 Civ. 482 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2024)
Case details for

Peru v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:CRAIG PERU, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE…

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

Date published: Jan 26, 2024

Citations

24 Civ. 482 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2024)