Taijeron v. Akoma

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM
DE-ANNA TAIJERON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UGOCHUKWU AKOMA,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL CASE NO. 23-00023
ORDER
Granting Motion for Entry of Protective
Order to Allow Plaintiff to Appear Via
Video for Deposition (ECF No. 40)
Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of a Protective Order seeking leave
of court to permit the Plaintiff to appear remotely for her deposition. See ECF No. 40. Having
reviewed the relevant filings and finding good cause as discussed below, the court grants the motion
and allows the Plaintiff's deposition to occur remotely by video conference.
DISCUSSION
This is an action where the Plaintiff alleges she was sexually assaulted by the Defendant.1 The
Plaintiff relocated to the mainland United States, and the Defendant sought to depose the Plaintiff
on Guam. The Plaintiff moved for a protective order under Rules 26(c)(1) and 30(b)(4) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting that traveling to Guam for the deposition will “undermine
her treatment and place at risk her mental health.” Mem. Supp. Mot. Protective Order at 2, ECF
No. 40-1. She asks that she be permitted to appear for a video deposition in lieu of an in-person
1 The alleged assault occurred during a period when the Plaintiff claimed she was seeking
treatment from the Defendant (a medical doctor) for depression and anxiety arising from a past
sexual assault – a rape while she was a child that continued to haunt her into adulthood. See Compl.
at ¶ 6.
Case 1:23-cv-00023 Document 45 Filed 11/19/25 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
De-Anna Taijeron v. Ugochukwu Akoma, Civil Case No. 23-00023
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order 	page 2 of 4
deposition and claims that “appearing in person in front of her abuser will exacerbate her Major
Depressive Disorder and PTSD.” Id.
1. 	Legal Standard
Rule 30 governs depositions by oral examination and provides that a party who wishes to
depose an individual may choose the time, place and manner of the deposition. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 30(b)(1). Usually, “depositions should be taken in the district where the action is being litigated.”
Lexington Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 1999 WL 33292943, *9 (N. D. Cal. Sept. 17, 1999)
(quoting Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Dacar Chem. Prods., Co., 707 F. Supp. 793, 795 (W.D. Pa.
1989)). 	“As a general rule, ‘plaintiff will be required to make himself or herself available for
examination in the district in which suit was brought.’” Id. (quoting 8A Charles Alan Wright &
Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, § 2112 (3d ed.)). However, “[t]he parties may
stipulate – or the court may on motion order – that a deposition be taken by telephone or other
remote means.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4).
“Leave to permit remote depositions should generally be granted liberally.” Brower v.
McDonald’s Corp., No. 2:19-cv-02099-GMN-BNW, 2021 WL 3573633, at *2 (D. Nev. May 28,
2021). In determining whether to grant a request for a remote deposition, courts follow a two-step
process: (1) the proponent must present a legitimate reason for seeking a remote deposition; and
(2) if the movant establishes a legitimate reason, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to make
a particularized showing of prejudice that would result from a remote deposition. Id.; Richardson
v. Grey, No. 1:23-CV-00375-DCN, 2025 WL 843768, at *2 (D. Idaho Mar. 18, 2025).
A party may also petition the court for a protective order after certifying that said party has
in good faith attempted to resolve the discovery dispute without the need for court intervention. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). “The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person
from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense[.]” Id. 	A court may
impose various conditions, including “specifying terms, including time and place . . ., for the
disclosure or discovery,” “prescribing a discovery method other than the one selected by the party
seeking discovery,” or “designating the persons who may be present while the discovery is
conducted[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(B)-(C) and (E).
Case 1:23-cv-00023 Document 45 Filed 11/19/25 Page 2 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
De-Anna Taijeron v. Ugochukwu Akoma, Civil Case No. 23-00023
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order 	page 3 of 4
2. 	Analysis
In this case, the Plaintiff asserts that her mental health conditions are exacerbated by the
prospect of return to Guam for her deposition and being confronted by the Defendant. In support
of her assertion, the Plaintiff’s motion includes a note from the Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist dated
August 13, 2025. See Ex. A to Mem. Supp. Mot. Protective Order, ECF No. 40-2. The doctor states
that it is his
professional opinion that [the Plaintiff] would have significant worsening symptoms
of Depression and PTSD if she is asked to testify or be deposed in front of the
accused / her alleged assailant. 	I recommend any interviewing or deposition be
obtained by a secured form of video teleconference. 	Return to Guam would be a
potential trigger for increased symptoms.
Id.
The Defendant claims no good causes exists for a remote deposition since the Plaintiff flew
to Guam to testify at the related criminal trial in 2024 and never complained about any mental health
concerns then. The Defendant’s argument about the Plaintiff’s condition last year does not diminish
the treating psychiatrist’s professional opinion about the Plaintiff’s current mental health status. The
court finds that the Plaintiff has presented a legitimate reason supporting her request for a remote
deposition. The burden now shifts to the Defendant to make a particularized showing that he will
be prejudiced if the court permits the deposition to be conducted remotely.
The Defendant contends he will be prejudiced by a remote deposition because counsel will
not be able to accurately assess the Plaintiff’s credibility because “[v]ideo feed flattens non-verbal
cues (e.g. hesitations, agitations) [that] are vital for sexual assault claims.” Def.’s Opp’n at 4, ECF
No. 43. The Defendant also claims there is “danger of coaching by other during the deposition.” The
court notes, however, that counsel for the Defendant is free to travel to North Carolina to conduct
the Plaintiff’s deposition personally, and this should allay the concerns raised by the Defendant.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, “remote video conferencing has become a standard means of taking
depositions.” Wag Hotels, Inc. v. Wag Labs, Inc., No. 20CV01326BLFVKD, 2022 WL 4133297,
at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2022). The court finds that the Defendant has failed meet his burden of
showing prejudice would result from a remote deposition. 	While a remote deposition may not
always be appropriate, it is warranted here when comparing the parties’ competing interests and the
Case 1:23-cv-00023 Document 45 Filed 11/19/25 Page 3 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
De-Anna Taijeron v. Ugochukwu Akoma, Civil Case No. 23-00023
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order 	page 4 of 4
impact an in-person deposition on Guam will have on the Plaintiff’s mental health, particularly at
this stage of the proceedings.
Accordingly, the court grants the Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order. The court orders
that if the Defendant notices the Plaintiff’s deposition to occur on Guam, the Plaintiff may appear
for said deposition remotely by video conference. Counsel for the Defendant also has the option of
noticing the deposition to take place at a mutually agreeable time in North Carolina, where the
Plaintiff now resides, and counsel can travel to North Carolina for the deposition. However, the
court further orders that the Defendant must not attend the Plaintiff’s deposition, whether in person
or remotely.2
Finally, the court cautions the Plaintiff that if this matter proceeds to trial, the Plaintiff is
expected to travel to Guam and appear at the jury trial in person.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2 The court notes that in his Opposition, the Defendant agrees that he “will not attend
Plaintiff’s deposition” thus “eliminating confrontation.” 	Def.’s Opp’n at 3, ECF No. 43.
/s/ 0LFKDHO-%RUGDOOR
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated: Nov 19, 2025
Case 1:23-cv-00023 Document 45 Filed 11/19/25 Page 4 of 4