Relates to proper procedures for remote depositions including location, and the administration of the oath.
S10374 amends New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules to expressly authorize depositions to be taken remotely by telephone or other electronic means. The bill updates Rule 3113 to require the notice for a remote deposition to include reasonable provisions for creating an accurate record and for handling exhibits, while removing older language that made remote participation dependent on party stipulation and more detailed physical-presence requirements.
The bill also clarifies where a remote deposition is deemed to occur: at the location where the deponent answers the questions. It permits the oath to be administered remotely if the officer can see and hear the deponent, and adds special rules for oaths taken outside New York. In that case, the oath administrator must be authorized where the deponent is located, or the deponent must acknowledge the testimony is given under penalties of perjury under New York law. The measure further assigns extra costs of remote deposition to the party requesting it, allows parties to agree to alternative procedures unless the court orders otherwise, and permits in-person attendance at the deponent’s location at the attendee’s own expense.
This bill would modify CPLR Rule 3113 governing deposition procedure in civil litigation, making remote depositions a clearly authorized default option rather than a practice dependent on stipulation. It would affect litigants, attorneys, court reporters, and deposition officers by setting statewide rules for notice, recordkeeping, exhibit use, oath administration, venue, and cost allocation for remote testimony. It would also apply prospectively to depositions taken on or after the effective date.
The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded opposition, so there is no direct evidence of debate or partisan division in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s text, the measure appears to be a procedural modernization bill aimed at clarifying and normalizing remote deposition practice, which typically suggests a practical, efficiency-oriented purpose rather than a controversial policy shift.
The main potential points of contention are procedural and cost-related: who pays the added expense of remote participation, how exhibits and the record are managed, and whether remote administration of oaths is sufficiently reliable, especially when the deponent or oath administrator is outside New York. Another possible issue is whether the bill’s default authorization of remote depositions reduces flexibility or creates disputes over where the deposition legally occurs and what alternative procedures parties may adopt.