Citation. 22 Ill.184 F.R.D. 395 (D. Kan. 1999)
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here Brief Fact Summary.
Plaintiffs, Lisa Wilson et al., wanted to videotape the depositions, while Defendants, Olathe Bank et al., moved to prevent the videotaping.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
Rule 30(b)(2) allows for the videotaping of depositions unless the court orders otherwise.
Facts.
Plaintiffs wanted to videotape the depositions. Defendants opposed the idea, and moved, under Rule 26(c), to prevent the videotaping. Defendants argued that videotaping would be more costly, would cost them in taxes, would be burdensome and that there was no need since Defendants would be available for trial.
Issue.
The issue is whether Defendants’ motion to oppose the videotaped depositions should be granted.
Held.
The court denied Defendants’ objection to the videotaping of depositions. Defendants relied on Rule 26(c), but that only protects parties from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense. Reliance on this rule requires more than conclusory assertions. In this case, Defendants did not cite any specific facts. The court determined that there was no real expense in videotaping, there was no additional burden of any other resources and their argument that videotaping increased their taxable costs does not reach the level of refusing the videotaping. Most important, Rule 30(b)(2) allows for the party taking the depositions to choose the form of the deposition.
Discussion.
The court wanted to allow a party to conduct depositions as they saw fit without interfering except for good cause. Defendants’ conclusory assertions did not reach the level of good cause.
