Zoom Is Not a Place

Zoom Is Not a Place. The Courthouse is Just Getting Farther Away.

Federal judges are still being asked to consider the legality of subpoenas demanding that deposition witnesses appear at a mythical location known as “Zoom.” Which is somewhat surprising given the plump corpus of judicial decisions declaring that Zoom, like Shangri-La and Brigadoon, is not actually a physical location on this planet. It is also, as of a September report from the Judicial Conference, a question with a shelf life.

Just last month, in Sheikh v. Chaudry, No. 1:24-cv-00658 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 25, 2026), the court was obliged to point out that a deposition notice commanding the witness to appear “via Zoom” failed to specify where, exactly, the witness needed to be to give testimony. A few months earlier, in Coleman v. County of Kings, No. 1:24-cv-00659 (E.D. Cal., April 15, 2026), the magistrate declined to compel compliance with a similarly worded deposition notice, remarking that “VIA REMOTE VIDEO CONFERENCE (i.e., Via Zoom)” is not a “place” for purposes of designating a valid place of compliance with a subpoena.

Why does any of this matter? Because of how Rule 45 measures distance. Rule 45(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, under the heading “Place of Compliance,” provides that a subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only “within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person.” For live testimony, the “place” is the location of the proceedings, so the 100 miles runs from the witness to the courthouse, not from the witness to wherever the witness happens to be sitting. Litigators who summon witnesses to appear on Zoom are not making a claim about cyberspace, whatever William Gibson imagined in Neuromancer. They are looking for a way around that measurement.

We have written about this before. More than once, in fact.

Never describe Zoom as a “place,” even if it feels like you’ve taken up permanent residence in front of that computer screen.

Technology Changes the “Place” of Compliance

Courts are divided over what happens when testimony is delivered remotely from, say, a computer in a conference room near the witness’s residence. Some reason that, when testimony is given remotely, Rule 45’s concern about travel over long distances is beside the point.

For example, in United States v. $110,000 in United States Currency, No. 21-981 (N.D. Ill., June 10, 2021), the court held that “Rule 45(c) does not limit the reach of a subpoena to only those residing within 100 miles of the pending litigation. Instead, Rule 45(c)’s geographic limits were crafted to protect third parties from the undue burden of traveling more than 100 miles to provide testimony.” See also In re Subpoena Issued (Borchetta), No. 3:25-mc-00024 (M.D. Tenn., Nov. 25, 2025), taking a similar approach.

Borchetta and $110,000 in United States Currency appear to be minority views. Elsewhere among federal trial courts, contrary rulings abound:

• “Zoom videoconferencing” is not a “place”; rather, it is a method of taking the deposition. Frobe v. UPMC St. Margaret, No. 20-957 (W.D. Pa., July 13, 2021)
• “VIA ZOOM VIDEO CONFERENCE” is not a “place.” Federal Insurance Co. v. Tungsten Heavy Powder & Parts, No. 21-1197 (S.D. Cal., July 18, 2022)
• A deposition subpoena that designates “Zoom” as the “place” of compliance fails to comply with Rule 45. Devine v. Judson, No. 4:24-cv-02911 (S.D. Tex., July 10, 2025)
• A Zoom link is the method for taking the deposition, not the physical place of compliance. Swiss Advisors, AG v. Rymark Inc., No. 25-153 (E.D. La., Feb. 19, 2025)
• “VIA ZOOM VIDEO CONFERENCING: Link to be provided at a later date” fails to properly designate the place of compliance with a deposition subpoena. McCabe v. Conair LLC, No. 24-5594 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2025)

The Ninth Circuit, the only appellate court to weigh in so far, was not willing to stretch Rule 45(c) to permit remote trial testimony and depositions far from the courthouse door. “While technology and the COVID-19 pandemic have changed expectations about how legal proceedings can (and perhaps should) be conducted, the rules defining the federal subpoena power have not materially changed,” the court stated in In re Kirkland, 75 F.4th 1030 (9th Cir. 2023). “We are bound by the text of the rules.” The court held that Rule 45(c) defines the outer limits of the subpoena power: 100 miles means 100 miles from the location of the trial proceedings, not 100 miles from the place a remote witness gives testimony.

Enter the Judicial Conference

The Judicial Conference sees the issue differently. In a September 2026 report from its Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure to the full Judicial Conference and the U.S. Supreme Court, the committee recommended adding new language to Rule 45(c):

(2) For Remote Testimony. Under Rule 45(c)(1), the place of attendance for remote testimony is the location where the person is commanded to appear in person.

The accompanying commentary explains:

The proposed amendment to Rule 45(c) adds a new subsection (c)(2) to address subpoenas for remote trial testimony. The proposed new subsection clarifies that the “place of attendance for remote testimony is the location where the person is commanded to appear in person.” Under new Rule 45(c)(2), the court’s subpoena power for in-court remote testimony extends nationwide so long as the subpoena does not command the witness to travel farther than the distance authorized under Rule 45(c)(1).

That language, along with other changes to the pretrial discovery rules, would clarify that federal trial courts have the authority to issue subpoenas for remote trial testimony and remote depositions nationwide, subject to the 100-mile limits in Rule 45(c)(1).

Although the changes to Rule 45 are directed primarily at remote trial testimony, as was In re Kirkland, in practice they will shape views on the reach of remote deposition subpoenas. What has not changed is the standard governing whether to order a remote deposition. For now, that remains stipulation or a court order for good cause.

When Does This Take Effect?

If the proposed addition follows the customary course for rules revisions, it will be included in the Chief Justice’s rules submission to Congress in May 2027. By statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2074 requires the Supreme Court to transmit proposed rules to Congress “not later than May 1” of the year the rules are to take effect, and a rule takes effect “no earlier than December 1” of that year unless Congress provides otherwise. That makes December 1, 2027, the earliest possible effective date.

Until Then, Three Things to Do

• Specify a physical location as the place of compliance in every deposition notice
• Get a stipulation or a court order for good cause before proceeding remotely
• Never describe Zoom as a “place,” even if it feels like you’ve taken up permanent residence in front of that computer screen