IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

CHYNA J. MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:18-cv-747

Judge James L. Graham

Magistrate Judge Jolson

THE COLUMBUS URBAN LEAGUE, et al.,

Defendants.

JOSELYN PARKER,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:18-cv-748

Judge James L. Graham

Magistrate Judge Jolson

THE COLUMBUS URBAN LEAGUE, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter came before the Court for a telephonic conference on September 9, 2020 to 

discuss the parties’ outstanding discovery disputes. Among others, the parties raised the issue of 

whether depositions should be conducted in-person or remotely. The Court directed the parties to 

meet and confer regarding this issue, but they were unable to resolve their disagreement.

Defendants seek to conduct the depositions of Plaintiffs in-person. Due to health concerns 

related to the COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiffs maintain that all depositions should be conducted 

remotely. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00747-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/15/20 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 145
This issue has arisen with increasing frequency in this Court and other federal courts 

around the country. To the best of the Court’s knowledge, no other federal court has compelled 

parties or witnesses to participate in an in-person deposition during the COVID-19 pandemic. As 

one district court in this Circuit recently explained, “it is quite clear that in-person depositions can 

impose an unreasonable burden on witnesses, parties, and lawyers during this pandemic.” Faford 

v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co., No. 19-10523, — F.R.D. —, 2020 WL 4890413, at *2 (E.D. Mich. 

July 28, 2020) (citing Joffe v. King & Spalding, LLP, No. 17-3392, 2020 WL 3453452, at 

*8 (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2020)). “In fact, depositions by videoconference have emerged as the 

preferred method of coping with the complications and perils this pandemic has wrought.” Faford,

2020 WL 4890413, at *2 (citing Damron v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 19-11497, 2020 WL 

3071850, *1 (E.D. Mich. June 10, 2020)); see also H & T Fair Hills, Ltd. v. All. Pipeline L.P., No. 

CV 19-1095, 2020 WL 5512517, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 14, 2020) (internal citations and quotations 

omitted) (“Remote depositions are the best safeguard against COVID-19 because even social 

distancing does not guarantee a safe deposition environment. Remote depositions entirely 

eliminates the safety concerns of transmission between participants.”); Fouad v. Milton Hershey 

Sch. & Tr., No. 1:19-CV-253, 2020 WL 4228278, at *1 (M.D. Pa. July 23, 2020) (collecting cases) 

(“In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, courts and attorneys across the country have had to face the 

new reality of our world which involves social distancing, wearing face coverings, taking remote 

depositions, and conducting remote court proceedings ... [I]n consideration of this altered world 

in which we live, courts across the country have ordered that video depositions be conducted in 

lieu of in-person discovery proceedings, finding that the risks presented by COVID-19 convey 

good cause to conduct remote depositions.”); Learning Res., Inc. v. Playgo Toys Enterprises Ltd.,

No. 19-CV-00660, — F.R.D. —, 2020 WL 3250723, at *3 (N.D. Ill. June 16, 2020) (ordering 

Case: 2:18-cv-00747-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/15/20 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 146
remote depositions based on the health risks posed by COVID-19); Wilkens v. ValueHealth, LLC,

No. 19-1193-EFM-KGG, 2020 WL 2496001, at *2 (D. Kan. May 14, 2020) (noting that “[v]ideo 

or teleconference depositions and preparation are the ‘new normal’ and most likely will be for 

some time”).

The Court agrees with this approach, particularly given that the case has been pending for 

two years. There is no indication that the health risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic are going 

to be reduced significantly in the near future. The parties need to complete these depositions 

expeditiously, and the use of videoconferencing technology is the best means of doing so. 

Therefore, the parties are ORDERED to conduct their depositions remotely. At the 

telephonic conference, Defendants expressed concern that remote depositions would be difficult 

due to the document intensive nature of this case. The parties are ORDERED to make a good 

faith effort to complete Plaintiffs’ depositions in the time permitted by the Federal Rules. If 

Defendants are unable to complete their questioning during that allotted time because of the 

challenges posed by remotely deposing Plaintiffs, the Court expects that Plaintiffs will grant 

Defendants a reasonable extension of time to complete their questioning. If the parties are unable 

to agree regarding the need for additional time, the Court will resolve any dispute. Further, 

counsel, the parties, and any deponents are ORDERED to participate in remote depositions from

separate locations. For example, Plaintiffs and their counsel are not permitted to be in the same 

room during Plaintiffs’ deposition. Finally, Plaintiffs are directed to make reasonable 

accommodations to assist defense counsel in conducting remote depositions. If Plaintiffs and their 

counsel fail to do so, the Undersigned will reconsider this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case: 2:18-cv-00747-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/15/20 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 147
Date: September 15, 2020 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case: 2:18-cv-00747-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/15/20 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 148