Julie Berry v. Rob Kolkman; Constable Kolkman LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Utah denied motions by nonparty John Sindt and the Kolkman Defendants to compel production of a video recording that plaintiff’s attorney personally made during Sindt’s deposition. The court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(f)(3) applies to official deposition recordings made by a qualified officer, not personal-use recordings by counsel, and found no other basis requiring production. The court also concluded that the video was unnecessary to resolve related motions concerning the deposition and declined to decide whether it was protected work product.

Holdings

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(f)(3), which requires an officer who transcribes or records a deposition to furnish a copy to a party or deponent, applies only to the official transcript or recording made by a qualified deposition officer, not to a separate personal-use recording made by a party's attorney.
2. The deposition video need not be produced merely because it might relate to motions concerning the early termination of the deposition when the official transcript and other evidence are sufficient to resolve those motions.
3. A motion to compel production of a personal-use deposition recording fails where the movant does not explain the recording's relevance, identify legal authority requiring production, or identify an authorized discovery request to which the recording is responsive.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(f)(3) required production of a deposition video personally recorded by a party's attorney rather than by the qualified deposition officer.
2. Whether the movants otherwise established a legal or discovery basis requiring production of the attorney's personal-use deposition recording.
3. Whether the asserted relevance of the video to related deposition disputes warranted an order compelling its production.

Disposition

other