Gross v. Housing Authority of the City of Las Vegas et al

Filing 141

ORDER Granting 135 Motion for Video Deposition. Denying 140 Motion for Deposition Protocol. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 8/11/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
6
IRIS JANE GROSS,
7
8
9
10
11

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY
)
LAS VEGAS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:11-cv-01602-JCM-CWH
ORDER

12
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Video Deposition (#135), filed
13
July 22, 2014, and Plaintiff’s Response (#139), filed August 8, 2014. The matter is also before the
14
Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Establish Deposition Protocol (#140), filed August 8, 2014.
15
Defendants request an order permitting Plaintiff’s deposition to be recorded via video.
16
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(3) provides that “[u]nless the court orders otherwise,
17
testimony may be recorded by audio, audiovisual, or stenographic means.” In this District,
18
“stenographically recorded deposition testimony [is] the norm and video depositions must be
19
approved by the Court.” In re Stratosphere, 182 F.R.D. 614, 617 (D. Nev. 1998). It is, however,
20
the practice of District of Nevada judges to liberally permit video depositions unless it appears that
21
the video was requested to intimidate a witness or that editing objectionable sections of the video
22
for trial will be difficult. Id; see also Clark v. Thomas, 2014 WL 2612275 (D. Nev). As stated in In
23
re Stratosphere, “[s]o long as there is a transcript of the deposition which can be used for cross24
examination, in the event that use of the video may be disruptive to the orderly conduct of cross25
examination, there appears to be no good cause why video depositions should not be permitted here
26
in conjunction with stenographic transcripts.” Id at 217.
27
The undersigned has reviewed the briefing and, consistent with the charge to liberally permit
28
video depositions, will permit Plaintiff’s deposition to be video recorded. It does not appear that the

1

video deposition is requested for an improper purpose. As in In re Stratosphere, the Court will

2

require the video deposition in conjunction with stenographic transcripts so that a transcript may be

3

used for cross-examination should the video prove disruptive to the orderly conduct of cross-

4

examination. The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff’s motion for deposition protocol (#140) and

5

finds the requested protocol to be unnecessary.

6

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing,

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Video Deposition (#135) is

8
9
10
11

granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Deposition Protocol (#140) is
denied.
Dated: August 11, 2014.

12
13
14

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2