Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01637/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01637-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:0101 Copyright Infringement (definitions)

---

1 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT ALEXANDER KASEBERG, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

CONACO, LLC, et al., 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

ORDER REGARDING JOINT 

MOTIONS 

(ECF Nos. 49, 50, 51) 

On August 3, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery 

Dispute regarding Josh Comers’ deposition. (ECF No. 49.) On August 12, 2016, the 

parties filed the following two Joint Motions: (1) Joint Motion for Determination of 

Increasing Number of Depositions Permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

30(a)(2)(A)(i) (ECF No. 51); and (2) Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (ECF No. 

50). Having considered the arguments of the parties and the applicable law, and for the 

reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s requests, as set forth below. 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Factual Background 

Plaintiff commenced this action on July 22, 2015 by filing a complaint against 

Defendants alleging copyright infringement. (ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”).) Plaintiff alleges he 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 54 Filed 08/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 12
2 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

28

is a comedic writer engaged in the entertainment industry. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Plaintiff alleges 

that after he wrote and published four jokes on his personal online blog and/or Twitter 

account, each joke was subsequently featured in the monologue segment of the “Conan” 

show. (Id. at ¶¶ 15-21.) 

Plaintiff alleges that he published a joke regarding a Delta flight on or about January 

14, 2015 on his personal online blog (“Joke #1”). (Id. at ¶ 15.) Defendants used a joke 

about a Delta flight in the Conan show monologue on January 14, 2015. (See ECF No. 36-

1 (“Huskins Decl.”) at Exh. B at Definition K.) Plaintiff further alleges that, on or about 

February 3, 2015, he published a joke on his personal online blog and Twitter account 

regarding Tom Brady (“Joke #2”). (Compl. at ¶ 16.) Defendants used a joke about Tom 

Brady in the Conan show monologue on February 4, 2015. (Huskins Decl. at Exh. B at 

Definition M.) On or about February 17, 2015, Plaintiff alleges he published a joke on his 

personal online blog and Twitter account regarding the Washington Monument (“Joke 

#3”). (Compl. at ¶ 18.) Defendants used a joke regarding the Washington Monument in 

the Conan show monologue on February 17, 2015. (Huskins Decl. at Exh. B at Definition 

O.) Lastly, on or about June 9, 2015, Plaintiff alleges he published a joke on his personal 

online blog and Twitter account regarding Bruce Jenner (“Joke #4”). (Compl. at ¶ 19.) 

Defendants used a joke regarding Bruce Jenner in the Conan show monologue on June 9, 

2015. (Huskins Decl. at Exh. B at Definition Q.) 

Plaintiff filed copyright applications for each of the jokes at issue, deeming them 

“literary works,” with the United States Copyright Office on March 10, 2015, March 11, 

2015, June 26, 2015, and July 8, 2015. (Compl. at ¶ 23; see also ECF No. 1-2.) These 

applications are pending. (Id.) 

Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction, actual damages, statutory damages, increased 

statutory damages for willful infringement, and profits attributable to the infringement of 

Plaintiff’s copyrights pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 502(a) and 504. (Id. at pp. 6-7.) Plaintiff 

also seeks attorney’s fees and costs and punitive damages. (Id. at p. 7.) 

/// 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 54 Filed 08/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 12
3 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

28

B. Procedural Background 

The Scheduling Order in this case provides that all fact discovery must be completed 

by the parties by August 19, 2016. (ECF No. 29 at ¶ 2.) Expert designations were due 

June 24, 2016, and expert disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(a)(2)(A) and (B) are due August 30, 2016. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-4.) Supplemental expert 

disclosures are due September 30, 2016. (Id. at ¶ 5.) All expert discovery must be 

completed by October 28, 2016. (Id. at ¶ 6.) And all pretrial motions must be filed by 

November 28, 2016. (Id. at ¶ 7.) 

Plaintiff has noticed and taken the depositions of the following individuals: 

(1) Defendant Mike Sweeney (taken June 22, 2016); 

(2) Danielle Weisberg (taken July 1, 2016); 

(3) Brian Kiley (taken July 15, 2016); 

(4) Rob Kutner (taken July 15, 2016); and 

(5) Christopher Hayes (taken July 29, 2016). 

(ECF No. 51 at pp. 7-8; ECF No. 51-1 at ¶¶ 4-7.) Plaintiff has also noticed the following 

depositions: 

(1) Defendant Conan O’Brien; 

(2) Defendant Jeff Ross (set for August 17, 2016); 

(3) Josh Comers; 

(4) Andy Richter;1

 

(5) John Bugolski (set for August 11, 2016); 

(6) PMK of Defendant Conaco, LLC (noticed for August 18-19, 2016); 

(7) PMK of Defendant Time Warner, Inc. (noticed for August 18-19, 2016); 

(8) PMK of Turner Broadcasting System (noticed for August 18-19, 2016). 

                                                                

1

 Plaintiff learned for the first time that Andy Richter was involved in writing 

the jokes at issue during the deposition of Defendant Mike Sweeney on June 22, 2016. 

(ECF No. 51-1 at ¶ 4.) His deposition has been noticed for August 17, 2016. (Id. at ¶ 8.) 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 54 Filed 08/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 12
4 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

28

(Id. at pp. 8-9; ECF No. 51-1 at ¶ 8.) Therefore, Plaintiff has noticed the depositions of 

thirteen individuals. 

 Plaintiff initially served the deposition notices for Defendants Conan O’Brien, Mike 

Sweeney, and Jeff Ross, as well as Danielle Weisberg,2

 Josh Comers, Brian Kiley, and Rob 

Kutner on April 18, 2016.3

 (ECF No. 51-1 at ¶ 2, Exh. A.) The depositions were all noticed 

for May, June, and July 2016 in Mission Viejo, California. (Id.) Plaintiff accompanied the 

notices with a letter stating that he was willing to move each of the depositions a week or 

two to accommodate the schedule of deponents and counsel. (Id.) Several of the 

depositions were re-noticed multiple times. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-6, Exh. A.) 

Plaintiff initially served the depositions notices for the Defendant PMKs on June 7, 

2016. (ECF No. 50-1 at ¶ 2, Exh. A.) The depositions were noticed for July 7 and 8, 2016. 

(Id.) They have not yet been taken. (Id. at ¶¶ 12-14.) 

Plaintiff learned the identities and relevance of Christopher Hayes and John 

Bugolski during the deposition of Defendant Mike Sweeney on June 22, 2016. (ECF No. 

51-1 at ¶ 4.)4

 Plaintiff took the deposition of Christopher Hayes in July and John 

Bugolski’s deposition is scheduled for August 11, 2016. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-8.) 

                                                                

2

 Danielle Weisberg is allegedly the monologue writing assistant responsible 

for receiving emails containing the jokes allegedly written by Rob Kutner, Brian Kiley, 

and Josh Comers. (ECF No. 51 at pp. 3-4.) Ms. Weisberg also “prepares and compiles 

numerous documents throughout the day including the jokes written, and is present at all 

meetings where the monologue jokes for the day are discussed between the writers.” (ECF 

No. 51-1 at ¶ 5.) 

3

 Defendant Conaco, LLC identified Josh Comers, Rob Kutner, Brian Kiley, 

and Mike Sweeney as the members of the writing staff who wrote, created and/or edited 

the jokes at issue in their Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories (Set On) served on April 

18, 2016. (ECF No. 38-2 at ¶ 12, Exh. 10, Interrogatory No. 4.) 

4

 Christopher Hayes, a member of the IT department, allegedly has information 

on the timing of a key email, and John Bugolski, a member of Conaco, LLC’s research 

department, has information about documents produced in initial disclosures “which 

apparently show that the jokes at issue were widely used by others.” (ECF No. 51 at pp. 

7-9.) 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 54 Filed 08/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 12
5 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

28

As of the date of this order, the parties do not appear to have set a date for the 

depositions of Andy Richter and Defendant Conan O’Brien. (ECF No. 51-1 at ¶¶ 9-12; 

ECF No. 51-2 at ¶¶ 3, 6.) The parties have also not agreed on a date or method for the 

deposition of Josh Comers, who resides in Brooklyn, New York. (ECF No. 49 at p. 3.) 

Plaintiff wishes to take the deposition of Josh Comers by telephone or videoconference, 

which he anticipates to take two to three hours, to save on the time and expense of travel, 

but Defendants are not amenable to this request. (Id. at pp. 3-4) 

II. DISCUSSION 

 A. Number of Depositions 

 Under Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party is entitled to up to 

ten depositions without leave of court, and to obtain discovery depositions beyond ten, 

leave of court is required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(A) (“the 

court may alter the limits in these rules on the number of depositions . . . under Rule 30.”). 

Under Rule 30(a)(2), the court must grant leave for a party to take a deposition beyond ten 

“to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2),” absent a stipulation between the 

parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i). 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) sets out the scope of discovery as follows: 

Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: 

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is 

relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the 

case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the 

amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the 

parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and 

whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in 

evidence to be discoverable. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Rule 26(b)(2)(C) provides that the court must limit the extent of 

discovery if it determines that the discovery is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or 

can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less 

expensive;” “the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the 

information by discovery in the action;” or “the proposed discovery is outside the scope 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 54 Filed 08/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 12
6 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

28

permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)-(iii). 

 A party seeking to exceed the presumptive limit bears the burden of making a 

“particularized showing” of the need for additional depositions. Smith v. Ardew Wood 

Prods., Ltd., No. C07-5641 FDB, 2008 WL 4837216, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 6, 2008) 

(citing Bell v. Fowler, 99 F.3d 262, 271 (8th Cir. 1996); Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. 

Aon Risk Servs., Inc. of Minn., 187 F.R.D. 578, 586 (D. Minn. 1999)). Pursuant to Rule 

26(b)(2)(C), courts have found it proper to deny additional depositions where they would 

be cumulative, without proper purpose, e.g., there is no evidence they would reveal 

anything other than what a party had already obtained, the party had ample opportunity to 

obtain the information by discovery in the action, or they would create an unreasonable 

burden or expense. See Bell, 99 F.3d at 271; Lehman Bros. Holdings, Inc. v. CMG Mortg., 

Inc., No. CV 10-0402 SC (NJV), 2011 WL 203675, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011). 

Parties should ordinarily exhaust their allowed number of depositions before making 

a request for additional depositions. See Thykkuttathil v. Keese, 294 F.R.D. 597, 600 (W.D. 

Wash. 2013) (citing Smith, 2008 WL 4837216, at *1 (explaining that “Rule 30(a)(2)(A) 

clearly contemplates that a party has already taken ten depositions before a motion is filed 

seeking leave of court for a proposed deposition that would result in more than ten 

depositions being taken under the rule.”); see also Authentec, Inc. v. Atrua Techs., Inc., No. 

C 08-1423, 2008 WL 5120767, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2008). 

Plaintiff argues good cause exists for increasing the number of depositions to fifteen. 

In addition to the thirteen depositions listed above, Plaintiff seeks “anywhere between 1 

and 3 additional depositions, which doesn’t include experts who may or may not be taken 

depending on the disclosures.” (ECF No. 51 at p. 10.) As to the unknown deponents, 

Plaintiff argues that “[s]ince the PMKs, nor Mr. O’Brien, nor Mr. Comers have been 

deposed, there may be additional unrevealed information which may require additional 

discovery.” (Id.) For these unknown deponents, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to 

make the requisite particularized showing. The Court has no information by which to 

evaluate whether these depositions would be cumulative, duplicative, burdensome, or 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 54 Filed 08/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 12
7 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

28

relevant. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for additional depositions of unknown deponents is 

denied without prejudice. 

However, as to the deponents listed above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has 

demonstrated their testimony is relevant and necessary to the prosecution of his case. The 

remaining deponents are defendants in this case and/or individuals who Plaintiff has 

determined through discovery to have information relevant and potentially significant to 

his claims. The Court also does not find the testimony sought to be to be necessarily 

cumulative or duplicative, or the depositions unduly burdensome or expensive. The 

depositions to date have been relatively short, with none exceeding four hours, and the 

majority of the deponents are located in Southern California. Accordingly, the Court grants 

Plaintiff’s request to increase the deposition limit to thirteen.5

 However, to the extent 

Defendant Jeff Ross is also the PMK for Defendant Conaco, LLC, Plaintiff is only granted 

leave to take twelve depositions.6

 (See ECF No. 51-1 at ¶ 13.) The Court further notes 

that to the extent Plaintiff determines that he needs to take additional depositions, including 

the depositions of any experts, he must seek further leave of court. 

B. Modifying the Scheduling Order 

“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of 

litigation.” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992)). The court may 

modify the scheduling order only for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic, 302 

F.3d at 1087. In the Ninth Circuit, “[t]he pretrial schedule may be modified if it cannot 

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Zivkovic, 302 

F.3d at 108 (citation and internal quotations omitted). “If the party seeking the 

                                                                

5

 The Court does not find Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his ten deposition limit 

before filing the joint motion to be prohibitive in light of the fact he was able to make a 

particularized showing of the need for deposing each additional individual. 

6

 Also, to the extent the parties agree the deposition of Andy Richter is 

unnecessary, Plaintiff is not granted leave to depose a different party. 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 54 Filed 08/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 12
8 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

28

modification was not diligent, the inquiry should end and the motion to modify should not 

be granted.” Id. (citation and internal quotations omitted). 

Plaintiff argues good cause exists to extend the fact discovery deadline from August 

19, 2016 to September 23, 2016. (ECF No. 50 at pp. 8-9.) He further argues good cause 

exists to continue the cut-off date for expert disclosures from August 30, 2016 to October 

14, 2016. (Id. at pp. 9-10.) Plaintiff relies on the contentions that he was diligent in 

pursuing discovery, the discovery issues that arose could not have been anticipated at the 

time of the CMC, and he promptly sought to modify the scheduling order upon learning of 

the need to do so. (Id. at p. 8.) In response, Defendants argue Plaintiff has not been diligent 

in pursuing discovery, and that any purported delay is the result of his own misconduct and 

lack of cooperation. (Id. at p. 12.) Defendants do agree to extend the expert disclosure 

deadline, but only to the extent Plaintiff’s experts will rely on the deposition testimony of 

these untimely deponents. (Id. at p. 13.) In addition, Defendants contend that any 

extension would severely prejudice its ability to bring a motion for summary judgment by 

the deadline in the scheduling order. (Id.) Thus, if the Court grants Plaintiff’s requests 

beyond two weeks, Defendants respectfully request that the Court move back its pretrial 

motion deadline. (Id.) 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has been diligent about pursuing discovery in this case. 

With respect to depositions, Plaintiff appears to have noticed each of the depositions 

promptly upon learning of the need for such depositions, provided more than adequate 

notice, and worked with Defendants to schedule the depositions at a time and place 

convenient to all parties. The Court acknowledges that some of the delay in scheduling 

depositions was occasioned by the pending discovery disputes before this Court. The Court 

further recognizes that both parties still have documents and information that need to be 

produced as a result of the Court’s July 26, 2016 and August 17, 2016 orders. (See ECF 

Nos. 47, 53.) Furthermore, as held above, the parties still have additional depositions that 

need to be taken. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to modify its February 23, 2016 

Scheduling Order, as follows: 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 54 Filed 08/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 12
9 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

28

 The fact discovery deadline is extended from August 19, 2016 to September 

23, 2016; 

 The expert disclosures deadline is extended from August 30, 2016 to October 

14, 2016; 

 The supplemental expert disclosures deadline is extended from October 28, 

2016 to November 4, 2016; 

 The expert discovery deadline is extended from October 28, 2016 to 

December 2, 2016; and 

 The pretrial motions deadline is extended from November 28, 2016 to January 

2, 2017. 

C. Josh Comers’ Deposition 

Plaintiff initially served the deposition notice for Josh Comers, a former writer for 

the “Conan” show, on April 18, 2016. (ECF No. 51-1 at ¶ 2, Exh. A.) The deposition was 

set for June 23, 2016 in Mission Viejo, California. (Id.) On June 10, 2016, Plaintiff was 

informed Mr. Comers works and resides in Brooklyn, New York and that Defendants were 

still determining available dates. (ECF No. 49-1 at Exh. D.) On June 15, 2016, Defendants 

confirmed that Mr. Comers was available July 27-29 and August 1-5, and stated that his 

deposition must take place within 100 miles of an address in Brooklyn, New York. (Id. at 

Exh. E.) On July 2, 2016, Plaintiff notified Defendants of his intent to depose Mr. Comers 

by telephone or videoconference, in order to save on the time and expense of travel. (Id. 

at ¶ 10.) Defendants expressed during meet and confer efforts that they were not amenable 

to this request. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-17.) 

Presently before the Court is a joint motion in which Plaintiff requests that the Court 

order Mr. Comers be deposed by telephonic means and/or videoconference, and 

Defendants request that if the Court is inclined to permit a remote deposition, it enter an 

order requiring Plaintiff to split the costs of Defendants’ counsel’s travel to New York and 

provide documents in advance of the deposition, or, alternatively, deny Plaintiff’s request 

to take Mr. Comers’ deposition remotely and direct Plaintiff’s counsel to appear in-person 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 54 Filed 08/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 12
10 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

28

for Mr. Comers’ deposition. (ECF No. 49 at pp. 8, 16-17.) 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4), “[t]he parties may stipulate – 

or the court may on motion order – that a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote 

means.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4). Rule 30(b)(4) serves to allow parties to control costs. 

Clinton v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., No. CIV S-05-1600-LKK-CMK-P, 2009 WL 210459, at *4 

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2009) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 1); see also Carrico v. Samsung Electronics 

Co., Ltd., 2016 WL 1265854, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2016) (“Courts in this district have 

found that remote videoconference depositions can be an effective and efficient means of 

reducing costs.”); Jahr v. IU Int’l Corp., 109 F.R.D. 429, 431 (M.D. N.C. 1986) (Rule 30’s 

remote deposition rule has the purpose of “reducing the cost of federal litigation by 

providing alternatives to traditional stenographic depositions”). 

“[C]ourts have not required a showing of extraordinary circumstances before 

granting Rule 30(b)(4) motions.” Jahr, 109 F.R.D. at 431. Leave “should be liberally 

granted in appropriate cases.” Id. “Thus, upon giving a legitimate reason for taking a 

deposition [remotely], the movant need not further show an extraordinary need for the 

deposition.” Id. “A desire to save money constitutes good cause to depose out-of-state 

witnesses [by] telephone or remote means.” Guillen v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 10–05825 

EJD PSG, 2011 WL 3939690, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2011) (citing Cressler v. 

Neuenschwander, 170 F.R.D. 20, 21 (D. Kan. 1996)); see also Carrico, 2016 WL 1265854, 

at *1. 

Once the movant gives a legitimate reason, the burden is on the party opposing the 

motion to show that it will suffer prejudice if the motion is granted. See id.; see also 

Clinton, 2009 WL 210459, at *3 (citing United States v. $160,066.98 from Bank of Am., 

202 F.R.D. 624, 629 (S.D. Cal. 2001); Jahr, 109 F.R.D. at 431). In any analysis, the court 

should consider whether the use of remote means would reasonably ensure “accuracy and 

trustworthiness.” Cressler, 170 F.R.D. at 21 (citing Rehau, Inc. v. Colortech, Inc., 145 

F.R.D. 444, 447 (W.D. Mich. 1993)). 

Plaintiff seeks to depose Mr. Comers remotely to save expense on travel costs, 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 54 Filed 08/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 12
11 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

28

particularly in light of the fact he anticipates the deposition will take no more than a few 

hours. (ECF No. 49 at p. 6.) Defendants argue a remote deposition would prejudice them 

in the following ways: “(1) not being present with the witness during the deposition; (2) 

solely incurring costs associated with travel to New York for an admittedly brief deposition 

in order to avoid prejudice; and (3) difficulty in the management of the anticipated exhibits 

and documents in a remote deposition.” (Id. at p. 10, lines 20-25.) The Court finds 

Plaintiff’s desire to save expenses on what is anticipated to be a short deposition is a 

legitimate reason to order a remote deposition. The Court further finds that Defendants 

will not be prejudiced by a videoconference deposition, and that there is no suggestion that 

such a method is inaccurate or untrustworthy. Defense counsel may be present with the 

witness during the deposition, if they so choose. However, defense counsel bears the 

burden of its own costs. Defendants have not provided the Court with any law to support 

Plaintiff paying for defense counsel’s costs, particularly when they are electing to incur the 

costs and they need not do so. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court orders that Mr. Comers’ deposition may be 

conducted by videoconference.7

 Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide Defendants’ counsel with 

a copy of all exhibits he intends to use at Mr. Comers’ deposition at least twenty-four (24) 

hours in advance of the scheduled deposition. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to increase his 

deposition limit to thirteen, with the limits laid out above (ECF No. 51); GRANTS 

Plaintiff’s motion to conduct Josh Comers’ deposition by videoconference, with the 

conditions laid out above (ECF No. 49); and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to amend the 

Scheduling Order (ECF No. 50), as follows: 

 The fact discovery deadline is extended from August 19, 2016 to September 

23, 2016; 

                                                                

7

 The Court does not authorize a telephonic deposition. 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 54 Filed 08/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 12
12 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

28

 The expert disclosures deadline is extended from August 30, 2016 to October 

14, 2016; 

 The supplemental expert disclosures deadline is extended from October 28, 

2016 to November 4, 2016; 

 The expert discovery deadline is extended from October 28, 2016 to 

December 2, 2016; and 

 The pretrial motions deadline is extended from November 28, 2016 to January 

2, 2017. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 19, 2016 

 _________________________ 

 DAVID H. BARTICK 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 54 Filed 08/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 12