How Courts Are Approaching Remote Deposition Requests

How Courts Are Approaching Remote Deposition Requests

Law firms are operating in an environment where remote depositions are increasingly accepted, according to an article by Esquire Deposition Solutions. Remote formats are well-suited for various circumstances, including shortages of court reporters, the dispersal of parties, and genuine hardship. The following examples illustrate how judges apply good-cause standards in 2025 and what litigators must demonstrate to secure remote testimony.

One case cited is Watson v. Child’s Healthcare of Atlanta, where the court accepted the plaintiff’s claims of financial and medical hardship as valid grounds for a remote deposition. The judge dismissed the defendant’s preference for in-person questioning, stating that the cited authorities regarding telephone testimony were irrelevant and highlighting the availability of established tools that support effective remote examination.

Another perspective was presented in Oakes Auto, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Motors of North America. In this case, the deponent’s pattern of avoiding service led the court to conclude that requiring lawyers to travel for an in-person deposition would likely be a waste of time and resources. The judge found these circumstances sufficient to justify the use of a remote format.

In Federal Trade Commission v. International Markets Live, Inc., the court favored the requesting party due to a short six-day notice and the opposing party’s failure to provide legal authority. The judge recognized hardship and concluded that a mere preference for traditional in-person questioning was inadequate to demonstrate prejudice.

Lastly, Faherty v. Field exemplifies how hardship can outweigh the typical expectation that a plaintiff appears in the forum of their choice. The court permitted a remote deposition but required the plaintiff to appear in person at trial.

These cases demonstrate that courts expect specific evidence when parties request a remote deposition. Unreasonable behavior can undermine credibility, and practical burdens continue to influence judicial discretion.