gavel law

Protective Order to prevent Video Deposition

In some cases, counsel and the opposition are agreeable. In other’s, that may not be the case.

In HsingChing Hsu v. Puma Biotechnology, California Central Court Case 8:15-cv-00865, we find the opposition having to ask Judge Andrew J. Guilford for a protective order. The Latham & Watkins defense team wanted to move forward with audio and video recording all parties for an upcoming deposition in order to prevent “disrespectful, unprofessional and abusive” behavior from the opposing counsel. The opposition argued that videotaping would be disruptive.

This issue highlights the power of video testimony. By recording all parties in a deposition, whether everyone is in the same room or remote, the risk of unprofessional conduct can be reduced. While some parties may not want their tactics recorded, most have no concern about creating a more accurate record of the deposition or testimony.

By default, vTestify records all parties but also allows for witness only recording. That way if any non-witness party is camera shy their video will not be captured.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *