Inner City Press





In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYTAzerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .



These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis
,



Share |   

Follow on TWITTER

Home -

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis

CONTRIBUTE

(FP Twitterati 100, 2013)

ICP on YouTube

More: InnerCityPro

BloggingHeads.tv
Sept 24, 2013

UN: Sri Lanka

VoA: NYCLU

FOIA Finds  

Google, Asked at UN About Censorship, Moved to Censor the Questioner, Sources Say, Blaming UN - Update - Editorial

Support this work by buying this book

Click on cover for secure site orders

also includes "Toxic Credit in the Global Inner City"
 

 

 


Community
Reinvestment

Bank Beat

Freedom of Information
 

How to Contact Us



In Hip Replacement Case in SDNY From Virtual Deposition To HIPAA Authorization Disputes

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - The Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, July 12 –    As the Coronavirus pandemic has proceeded but civil litigation has continued, the question of whether there is a right to in-person rather than virtual deposition has repeatedly arisen.

  Inner City Press has reported on a proceeding in which the deposition taker sent the deponent documents by FedEx, not to be opened until the very moment of questioning. 

  Now, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron has issued a ruling denying a deposition taker's argument that they had a right to in-person deposition, complete (if possible) with Perry Mason moments. From the decision:

"Before the Court is a Letter Motion by Plaintiffs, Jodi Rouviere and Andre Rouviere  (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed on July 7, 2020, to compel corporate representative(s) of  Defendant Howmedica Osteonics Corporation (“Howmedica”), doing business as Stryker  Orthopaedics, to appear in person for a deposition, pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules  of Civil Procedure, or, in the alternative, to extend the discovery deadline until an in-person  deposition of Howmedica’s corporate representative(s) can be conducted. (Pls.’ 7/7/20 Ltr. Mot.,  ECF No. 135.)1 For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ Letter Motion is DENIED.  BACKGROUND  This is a medical device product liability case that was commenced on May 31, 2018  arising from injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff Jodi Rouviere after receiving a purportedly  defective hip implant containing components manufactured by Howmedica and another  defendant, Defendant DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. ...

Chief Judge McMahon currently is conducting a bench trial  via Zoom in a patent case in our Court. See D. Siegal, Ferring And Serenity’s SDNY Patent Trial  Kicks Off Over Zoom, Law360 (Jul. 6, 2020).  So too, conducting depositions remotely is becoming the “new normal.” See In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig., No. 16-CV-08637, 2020 WL 3469166, at *5 (N.D. Ill. June 25, 2020)  (“Courts are beginning to recognize that a ‘new normal’ has taken hold throughout the country  in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic that may necessitate the taking of remote depositions  unless litigation is going to come to an indefinite halt until there is a cure or a vaccine for COVID-  19.” (citing cases))....

The only other potential prejudice to Plaintiffs by proceeding remotely is that the  examiner will not be physically present to interact with, and observe the demeanor of, the  deponent. However, a remote deposition by its nature is not conducted face-to-face. If the lack  of being physically present with the witness were enough prejudice to defeat the holding of a  remote deposition, then Rule 30(b)(4) would be rendered meaningless. See Robert Smalls Inc. v.  Hamilton, No. 09-CV-07171 (DAB) (JLC), 2010 WL 2541177, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2010)  (“accepting Plaintiffs’ arguments absent a particularized showing of prejudice ‘would be  tantamount to repealing [Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4)]’” (citation omitted)); see also Usov v. Lazar, No.  13-CV-00818, 2015 WL 5052497, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2015) (“remote depositions are ‘a  presumptively valid means of discovery’” (citations omitted))....

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Letter Motion (ECF No. 135) is DENIED. The  deposition of Howmedica’s corporate representative(s) shall be taken by videoconference no  later than August 21, 2020, and shall not exceed eight hours in duration.

Now on April 28, 2021, Judge Aaron held another conference. HIPAA authorizations and who signed them came up again and again. The case limps forward.

The case is  Rouviere et al v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al, 18-cv-4814 (Liman / Aaron). 

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540



Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for