From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stewart v. N.Y. City

United States District Court, S.D. New York
May 9, 2022
22 Civ. 3583 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. May. 9, 2022)

Opinion

22 Civ. 3583 (AT)

05-09-2022

SHAWN STEWART, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY, POLICE OFFICER STEPHANIE DAVIS, SHIELD # 28218, POLICE OFFICER BRIAN HIRSCHMAN, SHIELD # 22623, 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

Stewart v. N.Y. City

United States District Court, S.D. New York
May 9, 2022
22 Civ. 3583 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. May. 9, 2022)
Case details for

Stewart v. N.Y. City

Case Details

Full title:SHAWN STEWART, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY, POLICE OFFICER STEPHANIE…

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

Date published: May 9, 2022

Citations

22 Civ. 3583 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. May. 9, 2022)