(PC) Cox v. Krpin et al
Filing
44
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 09/08/2021 GRANTING 43 Ex Parte Application. Defendant is permitted to take plaintiff's deposition via a fully remote video conference. Such deposition testimony shall be admissible to the same extent as if the deposition were taken in person. (Rodriguez, E)
Case 2:18-cv-02523-TLN-DB Document 44 Filed 09/09/21 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ERNEST LEE COX, JR.,
12
No. 2:18-cv-02523 TLN DB P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
JOHN KRPIN,
15
ORDER
Defendant.
16
17
Defendant has requested permission to conduct a deposition of the plaintiff by remote
18
means pursuant to Rule 30(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 43.)
19
Defendant makes this request as the COVID-19 pandemic has “restricted the availability of court
20
reporters.” (Id. at 2.) Defendant also states that counsel for the defendants seeks to minimize his
21
risk of exposure. (Id.)
22
////
23
////
24
////
25
////
26
////
27
////
28
////
1
Case 2:18-cv-02523-TLN-DB Document 44 Filed 09/09/21 Page 2 of 2
1
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ application (ECF No.
2
43) is granted. Defendant is permitted to take plaintiff’s deposition via a fully remote video
3
conference. Such deposition testimony shall be admissible to the same extent as if the deposition
4
were taken in person.
5
Dated: September 8, 2021
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
DB:14
DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/cox2523.remote_depo
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?