Brooks v. Clinton, Township of, et al
ORDER Allowing for Video Conference Deposition of Non-Party Julie Fitzgerald. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SUSAN BROOKS and CLAUDIA HUTTO,
Case Number: 12-CV-12880
Honorable Denise Page Hood
CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CLINTON, a
Michigan municipal corporation, and GEORGE
FITZGERALD, an individual, sued in his official
and personal capacity.
ORDER ALLOWING FOR VIDEO CONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF
NON-PARTY JULIE FITZGERALD
On September 20, 2013, a telephonic status conference was held on Defendants’
Motion to Amend the Court’s Scheduling Order [Docket No. 91, Filed September
11, 2013]. During the conference, the parties agreed non-party Julie Fitzgerald will
complete her deposition by videoconference. The Court notes that it believes that
videoconferencing falls within the category of “other remote means” allowed for
depositions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4).
See Schoenherr v. Smith,
.12-CV-14276, 2013 WL 2239304 (E.D. Mich. May 21, 2013). The court also notes
that “[p]arties routinely conduct depositions via videoconference, and courts
encourage the same because doing so minimizes travel costs.” Gee v. Suntrust Mortg.,
Inc., 10-CV-01509 RS (NC), 2011 WL 5597124, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011).
IT IS ORDERED that Julie Fitzgerald’s deposition be completed by
videoconference at a date and time amenable to both parties.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Mrs. Fitzgerald’s attorney is unable to
produce her for deposition, he should notify Plaintiffs’ counsel for purposes of
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: September 26, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on September 26, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
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?