Martinez v. University of San Diego

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA In re University of San Diego Case No.: 20-cv-1946-LAB-WVG Tuition and Fees COVID-19 Refund Litigation ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY 13 DISPUTE RAISED JANUARY 6, 2023; REMOTE DEPOSITIONS OF This document relates to: PLAINTIFFS CATHERINE All Actions HOLDEN AND EDGAR CHAVARRIA 18 On January 6, 2023, pursuant to Judge William V. Gallo’s Chamber Rule IV, the Parties jointly contacted the Court’s Chambers seeking the Court’s adjudication for a discovery dispute raised by Defendant. The Court convened a Discovery Conference shortly after. (ECF No. 79.) Michael A. Tompkins and Yvette Golan appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Michael C. Sullivan appeared on behalf of Defendant. The dispute implicates in- person depositions of Plaintiffs Haley Martinez, Matthew Sheridan, Catherine Holden, and Edgar Chavarria noticed by Defendant. Plaintiffs objected to the in-person appearances due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and burden related to in-person depositions, arguing the depositions can adequately occur remotely.

27 During the Discovery Conference, Plaintiffs’ counsel represented they had come to an agreement with Defendants and that the deposition of Plaintiff Haley Martinez would |}occur in person in Philadelphia. Defendant’s counsel also represented Defendant was || willing to accommodate Plaintiff Matthew Sheridan’s request for a remote deposition due 3 his health condition. Plaintiff's counsel agreed that Plaintiff Matthew Sheridan’s || deposition would occur remotely.

5 Having heard from counsel for the Parties, the Court finds the dispute regarding || Plaintiffs Haley Martinez and Matthew Sheridan’s depositions have been resolved and is 7 ripe for adjudication. As to Plaintiffs Catherine Holden and Edgar Chavarria’s ||depositions, the Court finds Plaintiff's objections to in-person depositions to be || appropriate.

10 Courts in the Ninth Circuit have routinely authorized depositions to proceed |/remotely in light of the COVID-19 Pandemic. See, e.g Grano v. Sodexo Management, Inc., ||335 F.R.D. 411, 415 (S.D. Cal. 2020) (“Attorneys and litigants all over the country are || adapting to a new way of practicing law, including conducting depositions and deposition || preparation remotely.”); Swenson v. GEICO Cas. Co., 336 F.R.D. 206, 210 (D. Nev. 2020) || (observing “courts within the Ninth Circuit routinely highlight remote depositions as an 16 effective and appropriate means to keep cases moving forward notwithstanding pandemic- 17 related restrictions”). The Southern District of California continues to operate pursuant to 18 emergency declaration announced under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic || Security Act (“CARES Act’). Remote depositions continue to be a prudent and effective || way to conduct discovery.

21 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the depositions of Plaintiffs Catherine Holden and ||Edgar Chavarria to be conducted remotely, at a date and time to be agreed upon by the || Parties and their counsel.

24 IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 || DATED: January 6, 2023 | / UY Se 26 Hon. William V. Gallo 57 United States Magistrate Judge