Vargas v. Evergreen Professional Recoveries Inc
2:21-cv-00926
| W.D. Wash. | Mar 23, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Andrea Vargas moved to take her deposition remotely due to COVID-19 health concerns for herself and vulnerable household members; counsel also expressed similar concerns.
- Defendant Evergreen Professional Recoveries, Inc. opposed, arguing in-person deposition is needed to observe demeanor and non-verbal cues and asserted safety precautions could mitigate risk.
- The motion was brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4) (remote depositions) and alternatively under Rule 26(c)(1) (protective order).
- The court observed that remote depositions have become common practice during the pandemic and that COVID-19 case numbers had only recently improved in the District.
- The court found Evergreen’s objections—about evaluating demeanor and potential counsel-witness communications—overbroad and insufficient to show specific prejudice from a remote deposition.
- The court granted the motion for a protective order allowing a remote deposition, expecting counsel to cooperate on procedures to address transparency and professionalism.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a deposition may be taken remotely under Rule 30(b)(4) | Vargas: COVID-19 health risks to her and household justify remote deposition | Evergreen: in-person needed to evaluate body language, demeanors, and prevent improper private communications; in-person can be made safe | Granted: Court found legitimate COVID-related reason and no particularized showing of prejudice; allowed remote deposition under Rule 30(b)(4) |
| Whether a protective order under Rule 26(c)(1) is warranted | Vargas: in-person deposition would impose undue burden/health risk | Evergreen: safety precautions and vaccination reduce risk; remote deposition not necessary | Court granted relief under Rule 30 so did not rely on Rule 26, but noted outcome would not differ if analyzed under Rule 26 |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 337 F.R.D. 575 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (endorsing cooperation in designing remote deposition procedures and rejecting speculative objections to remote depositions)