Four Good Reasons for a Remote Deposition
Modern litigation takes place in forums that generally favor remote depositions. Remote depositions are a good choice for any deposition. However, they particularly shine in situations where court reporters are in short supply, or where parties are spread out across the country or facing imminent discovery deadlines, or finally in circumstances where the proposed deponent would suffer true hardship if required to travel for an in-person deposition.
Modern litigation takes place in forums that generally favor remote depositions. Remote depositions are a good choice for any deposition. However, they particularly shine in situations where court reporters are in short supply, or where parties are spread out across the country or facing imminent discovery deadlines, or finally in circumstances where the proposed deponent would suffer true hardship if required to travel for an in-person deposition.
In almost every case, litigators on both sides are able to agree on deposition schedules that move their cases along in an expeditious and cost-effective manner. And for those who require judicial assistance, courts have generally been sympathetic to requests for protective orders to hold depositions remotely, if given a particularized showing of “good cause” for a remote deposition. Four very recent cases show how courts are handling these requests in 2025.
True Financial Hardship
In Watson v. Child’s Healthcare of Atlanta, No. 24-cv-00514 (N.D. Ga., July 2, 2025), the plaintiff in a Family and Medical Leave Act case resisted an in-person deposition that would have required her to travel from Illinois to Atlanta, Georgia, where she filed her lawsuit. She alleged she had been unemployed for over two years and was homeless. The plaintiff also asserted that, due to treatments for a thyroid condition, she would be physically unable to drive a motor vehicle to Atlanta.
Opposing a remote deposition, the defendant offered familiar arguments in favor of an in-person deposition. The plaintiff was a key witness in the litigation. The plaintiff filed her lawsuit in Atlanta where the in-person deposition was noticed. An in-person deposition would allow the defendant’s attorney to better assess the plaintiff’s demeanor and other indicia of credibility.
The court decided that, in this case, the plaintiff had made a sufficient showing of good cause for a remote deposition. Taking up the defendant’s arguments in favor of an in-person deposition, the court observed that these arguments were based, in part, on unpersuasive cases involving telephone depositions where visible signs of demeanor could not be assessed by questioning counsel. The court also remarked on the “many resources available from vendors and through the legal community to assist counsel in preparing for remote depositions” as well as its own positive experiences with remote technologies for mediations and conferences.
In-Person Deposition Would Be Waste of Time
In Oakes Auto, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Motors of North America, No. 24-2175 (D. Kan., July 17, 2025), the court ordered a remote deposition in order to spare attorneys the time and expense of traveling to an in-person deposition that, in all likelihood, the proposed deponent would fail to appear. An oddball case, admittedly.
The proposed deponent was a former employee of the defendant who had avoided service of deposition subpoenas, ignored a subpoena that had been successfully served, and was generally uninterested in cooperating with the plaintiff’s lawyers to make arrangements to take his deposition.
The court decided that these facts established good cause to take the employee’s deposition remotely. “Where [the witness] has previously failed to appear for his deposition and to avoid travel expenses for counsel located in Kansas, Missouri, New York, and Massachusetts should [he] again fail to appear, the Court, finds good cause for the deposition … to take place remotely as requested.”
Short Notice, Unhelpful Counsel
The ruling in Federal Trade Commission v. International Markets Live, Inc., No. 25-cv-00760 (D. Nev., Sept. 15, 2025), is probably best understood as an example of the negative consequences that can occur when a party makes unreasonable demands on the opposing party and on the court. Here, a deposition for a witness residing outside the forum was set on six days’ notice. When defendant filed for a protective order to avoid having to travel for an in-person deposition on such short notice, the plaintiff submitted an opposition pleading that contained no citation to legal authority.
According to local court rules, the court observed, the absence of citations to legal authority “itself constitutes a consent” to granting the motion for a protective order. “The Court is certainly mindful of the short timeframe in which this deposition was noticed, as well as in briefing the motion.”
Given that the deposition was set on six days’ notice, it would be a hardship for the deponent to travel to Nevada for the deposition, the court decided. A finding of hardship shifts the burden to the party demanding an in-person deposition to demonstrate prejudice if the deposition were to be conducted remotely. Here, the plaintiff merely expressed a preference for taking “the deposition the old-fashioned way, by sitting across the table from [the deponent], handing her documents, asking her questions about them, and assessing her reaction to them.”
“Such generalized statements are insufficient to show prejudice,” the court wrote as it granted protective relief. If the plaintiff insists on conducting the deposition in six days, it will be conducted remotely.
Remote Deposition, But There’s a Catch
Ordinarily, it is very difficult to make the case that the plaintiff’s chosen forum is an inconvenient location for the plaintiff’s in-person deposition. However, in Faherty v. Field, No. A-24-884802 (Nev. Dist. Ct., Clark Cty., July 25, 2025), the plaintiff was able to do just that.
After filing a lawsuit in state court in Nevada where she was a resident at the time, the plaintiff subsequently moved to Florida. When defendants noticed an in-person deposition to be conducted in Nevada, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking to have the deposition conducted remotely. She claimed financial hardship, as well as hardship attributable to traveling across the country to Nevada.
“While the general rule regarding a Plaintiff is that they should be desired in the forum, times are changing, and there appear to be hardships as stated by the Plaintiff,” the court remarked. It ordered the plaintiff’s deposition to be taken remotely at a court reporter’s office near her home in Florida.
However, there was a catch. “Plaintiff cannot have it both ways,” the court added. “If she seeks such a remote deposition that she cannot then appear in person at trial.” It’s hard to argue with the court’s logic here.
The lessons from these cases should be easy to spot. When insisting on a remote deposition over an opposing party’s objection, make sure your reasons for wanting a remote deposition are particularized and well-supported by the evidence. The prospect that an in-person deposition will be a waste of time and money remains a compelling justification for a remote deposition. Litigants who want the court to rule in their favor should be reasonable and be prepared to back up their arguments with legal authority. And, as is the case in most things in life, be careful what you ask for. You might just get it.