Relates to proper procedures for remote depositions

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Luis R. Sepúlveda says this is needed

This bill amends CPLR 311(d) to penult parties to notice dispositions to be conducted remotely by telephone or other electronic means. The stat- ute currently requires the stipulation of all parties in order for a disposition to be conducted remotely or for a party to participate remotely in an in-person deposition. The proliferation of remotely conducted depositions via platforms such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams during the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated to litigators the poten- tial benefits of remote depositions in terms of convenience and savings in time and expense. The experience with remote depositions during the pandemic warrants a change that would permit them to be conducted with- out requiring all parties to stipulate thereto. This measure would permit a party to serve a notice of deposition to be conducted via remote means. Like the requirement of the stipulation under the current rule, the notice would have to designate reasonable provisions to ensure that an accurate record is generated and would have to specify reasonable provisions for the use of exhibits during the deposition. In addition, the amendment answers various practical questions raised by the circumstances of a remote deposition, during which the witness and the parties may be in different locations. It provides that the place of a remote deposition is deemed to be the location where the deponent answers the questions. It provides that the person administering the oath need not be physically present at the location and may administer the oath electronically, provided that this person can see and hear the deponent and that the person administering the oath is authorized to do so in the place where the deponent answers the questions, or that the deponent acknowledges that they understand the testimony is true under penalties of perjury of the laws of New York. This measure further provides that the parties and the deponent may stipulate to alternative procedures, including alternatives for administering the oath. Under this measure, rule 3113 continues to provide that any additional costs are to be borne by the party seeking to have the deposition conducted remotely. However, because attorneys participating in deposi- tions may, for any number of reasons, not want to participate remotely and may prefer to be in the room with the witness, the amendment provides that "any party may, at their own expense attend and partic- ipate in a remote deposition in person at the same location as the depo- nent." Similarly, because there are many instances in which parties may determine that they do not need to attend in-person a deposition that is not being conducted remotely - such as distance, time or travel costs - the amendment provides that "in any deposition that is not being remote- ly, any party, other than the deponent, may participate remotely, provided that the remote participant bears any additional cost or expense associated with such participation." The provisions in the proposed amendment permitting any party to attend remote depositions in-person and permitting any party to attend in-person depositions remotely, each at their own expense, strikes a balance that is far and reasonable to all litigants under any applicable circumstances. It should further be noted that nothing in this measure would in any way alter or impair a party's right to object to a deposition which is noticed to be in-person.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.