Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01401/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01401-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332in Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1

15cv1401-BEN-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT 

DISTRICT,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONAL UNION FIRE 

INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

PITTSBURG, PA,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15cv1401-BEN-MDD

ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE 

APPLICATION TO BAR 

SEPARATE VIDEOTAPING OF 

DEPOSING ATTORNEY AT 

DEPOSITIONS SET FOR 

AUGUST 28-31, 2017

[ECF NO. 56]

Before this Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Bar Separate 

Videotaping of Deposing Attorney filed on August 21, 2017. (ECF No. 56). 

Considering that depositions pursuant to the challenged protocol are 

scheduled to begin Monday, August 28, 2017, the Court finds it appropriate 

that Plaintiff moved ex parte. Defendant was ordered to and did respond in 

opposition on August 24, 2017. (ECF No. 59). As provided below, Plaintiff’s 

Motion is GRANTED. Defendant is precluded from using a second camera to 

videotape the deposing counsel. 

Case 3:15-cv-01401-BEN-MDD Document 60 Filed 08/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

15cv1401-BEN-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

DISCUSSION

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 governs depositions by oral examination. Regarding 

methods of recording a deposition, the Rule provides that the party who 

notices the deposition must state “the method for recording the testimony.” 

Rule 30(b)(3)(A)(emphasis added). The Rule also provides that with prior 

notice to the deponent and other parties, “any party may designate another 

method for recording the testimony in addition to that specified in the 

original notice.” Rule 30(b)(3)(B)(emphasis added). The Rule addresses only 

the recording of “testimony.” It does not address the recording of questioning 

other than in the context of obtaining testimony. It says nothing at all 

regarding separately focusing a camera to record the questioning attorney. 

Case law, as the parties note, is sparse. Most of the case law 

addressing a second camera focused on the deposing attorney arise in the 

context of multi-district litigation and even in that context, “the use of 

multiple cameras during depositions in an MDL case is therefore, at best, 

disputed.” See In re Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) Prods. Liab. Litig., 2016 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 8233 *7-8, MDL No. 2592 Section L (E.D. La. January 25, 

2016)(collecting cases). The Xarelto Court allowed for the use of one 

additional camera in the discovery phase of an MDL action:

because it is not the place of an MDL court to dictate the method or 

propriety for the use of depositions at trial by the various state and 

federal courts if and when the cases are returned by the transferee 

court.

 

Id. at *8-9. 

In the non-MDL context, the Court found a single case authorizing a 

second camera trained on the deposing counsel; the use of the second camera 

was imposed as a sanction for the attorney’s misconduct during an earlier 

Case 3:15-cv-01401-BEN-MDD Document 60 Filed 08/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

15cv1401-BEN-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

deposition. Zottola v. Anesthesia Consultants of Savannah, PC, 2012 WL 

6824150 *7, No. CV 411-154 (S.D. Ga. June 7, 2012). Defendant cites to a 

case in this Court, Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania, et al., v. City of 

San Diego, Case No. 02-cv-0693-BEN-CAB (S.D. Cal.). Defendant did not 

supply a copy of the relevant order and did not cite to a particular docket 

entry. That case has 530 docket entries and the Order relied upon by 

Defendant is not obvious.

What is clear is that it is within the discretion of the Court to allow or 

disallow the second camera in this case. The Court finds that the use of a 

second camera focused upon the deposing attorney is not necessary or 

appropriate in this case. The Court finds that it is more likely that the 

second camera is intended to intimidate the deposing attorney rather than to 

better preserve the deposition for ultimate use at trial. See In re Xarelto, 

2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8233 *7.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-01401-BEN-MDD Document 60 Filed 08/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3