Sidya v. Kmache, 3:24-cv-00238

Plaintiff Yacoub Ould Sidya, a Mauritanian resident, filed a defamation suit in the Western District of Kentucky.
Defendant Sidi Mohamed Kmache is a Mauritania-born influencer residing in Louisville, Kentucky, who allegedly posted defamatory statements about Sidya on Facebook.
Plaintiff seeks to depose in Louisville, Kentucky, while the deposition location dispute arises from Sidya’s location outside the United States.
The Court held a discovery-dispute conference after Kmache’s failure to timely submit pre-conference materials; the hearing addressed deposition location and related discovery issues.
Sidya argues deposition should be remote or abroad due to access and expense; Kmache argues for in-person deposition in Louisville; the Court ultimately ordered in-person deposition in Louisville.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sidya’s citizenship/immigration status constitutes good cause.	Sidya lacks valid U.S. entry documents and may be refused entry.	Raft declaration is speculative; Sidya can still pursue visas; ties to the U.S. and abroad show travel feasible.	No good cause; in-person deposition required.
Whether Sidya’s fear of flying constitutes good cause.	Documented fear of flying makes remote deposition necessary.	Evidence of fear is insufficient; other contexts allow travel.	No good cause; fear of flying does not justify remote deposition.
Whether travel costs amount to good cause.	Roundtrip Mauritania–Louisville costs are significant and unreasonable.	Plaintiff wealth and access to private/air travel; commercial options exist.	No good cause; Plaintiff failed to prove inability to bear travel costs.
Whether remote deposition would prejudice the defense.	Issues are straightforward; remote deposition would not prejudice Kmache.	Remote deposition impairs assessment of credibility and demeanor; logistical issues.	Prejudice to Kmache favors denial of protective order; in-person deposition required.

Am. Intern. Tel., Inc. v. Mony Travel Servs., Inc., 203 F.R.D. 153 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (fear of flying does not require others to fly as a rule; relevance to travel concerns)
In re Chrysler Pacif. Fire Recall Prods. Liab. Litig., 737 F. Supp. 3d 611 (E.D. Mich. 2024) (remote depositions not universally required; context matters)
United States v. Rock Springs Vista Dev.,, 185 F.R.D. 603 (D. Nev. 1999) (financial hardship burden in travel for deposition requires demonstrated inability to pay)
United States v. $160,066.98 from Bank of Am., 202 F.R.D. 624 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (protective order denied where no evidence of financial inability)