Opinion
22 Civ. 10183 (AT)
12-06-2022
ALYSSA NICOLE WODABECK and CHRISTOPHER SUE-CHU, and JOSHUA WILLIAM LEONARD, and FARHAN KAS SAM. and MARK MCGREGOR COWIE, and ALEXANDER ROYT AND G.S.R., and JEREMY TYSON GUTSCHE, and KASIM SHAHID and HADIA KASIM, and JASON CROKE and MICHELLE CALVERT, Plaintiffs, v. ANTONY J. BLINKEN. and MERRICK GARLAND, and ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS. and WENDY R. SHERMAN, and RENA BETTER, and RICHARD C. VISEK, and DAVID L. COHEN, and KATHERINE BRUCKER, and ELIZABETH POWER, and SUSAN R. CRYSTAL, and ALEXANDER DELOREY, 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.