From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peterson v. Valnet, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jan 10, 2024
23 Civ. 11246 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2024)

Opinion

23 Civ. 11246 (AT)

01-10-2024

Christopher Peterson, Plaintiff, v. Valnet, Inc., Defendant.


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 Procedrue 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

Peterson v. Valnet, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jan 10, 2024
23 Civ. 11246 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2024)
Case details for

Peterson v. Valnet, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Christopher Peterson, Plaintiff, v. Valnet, Inc., Defendant.

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

Date published: Jan 10, 2024

Citations

23 Civ. 11246 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2024)