About SmartRules™
SmartRules™ is the navigation system for national litigators.  It gives detailed, step-by-step instructions for drafting and filing papers in state and federal courts throughout the Country.  Just specify (1) the document you are filing, and (2) your jurisdiction, and SmartRules will tell you everything you need to know to make sure your papers comply with all applicable rules, including all relevant local rules.
For more information on SmartRules™, call (866) 877-3770, or email sales@smartrules.com.
For suggestions about the SmartRules update, please email editors@smartrules.com.

Current Mandated Closure Days

September 16, 2009
October 21, 2009
November 18, 2009
December 16, 2009
January 20, 2010
February 17, 2010
March 17, 2010
April 21, 2010
May 19, 2010
June 16, 2010

CA CD.  No eff date indicated, comment period closed.  The changes are divided into 4 categories: Notice requirement for motions, Bill of Costs, Magistrate Judge Pilot Program, and Attorney Admission and Discipline, in all 25 rules will be revised. 

CA ED.  No eff date indicated, comment period closed Major rewrite of the civil local rules.

CA ND.  No eff date indicated, comment period closed Only Civil Rules 3-2 and 5-1 are affected. 

CA SD.  Eff Dec. 1, 2009, comments due Nov. 15, 2009 Major re-write of all civil local rules. 

GA ND.  No eff date indicated, comment period closes September 25, 2009 Major changes to civil local rules. 

IL ND.  No eff date indicated, the comment period is closed. Only rules 26.2 and 5.8 are affected. 

MD D.  Eff Dec. 1, 2009, comment period is closed. Substantial changes to civil local rules. 

TX ND.  Eff Dec. 1, 2009, comments until Oct. 5, 2009 Substantial changes to civil local rules. 

TX SD.  Eff. Dec. 1, 2009, comments until September 25, 2009 Minor changes to civil local rules. 

No Need to Panic, SmartRules Has the Answers

All of the SmartRules Guides will be updated and online on or before rules changes become effective. Even if not currently indicated, the SmartRules editorial team anticipates that the majority of United States District Courts will amend their civil local rules effective December 1, 2009, to avoid any conflicts with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Timing:

The New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules provide that an ex parte motion in a Supreme Court case may be made without notice at any motion term or to any Justice in any court in any county in the state. CPLR 2212(b). According to this rule, Supreme Court justices can provide ex parte relief on any matter, at any time, anywhere.  The Uniform Rules limit this power by providing that judges must refer ex parte applications to the judge assigned to a particular matter, unless the issue requires immediate determination. Uniform R. 202.07(e).

Ex Parte Motion Rules:

In most circumstances, all motions, including ex parte motions, must be made before the judge assigned to the matter. See Uniform R. 202.8(a).

According to custom and practice in New York, all motions must be made on notice, unless a statute or rule explicitly authorizes an ex parte motion. For example, there is an explicit ex parte statutory procedure for orders to show cause.  Other common statutory grants of authority for ex parte motions include:

Ex parte motions are permitted to seek the assistance of the court in devising a manner of service when standard methods fail. CPLR 308(5); CPLR 311(b).

The court may grant an extension of up to five (5) days time to commence the action. CPLR 304(a).

Attachment orders may be made and granted without notice. CPLR 6211.

If the required showing is made, a restraining order can be granted without notice to the opposing party. CPLR 6313.

All ex parte motions, including orders to show cause, must be accompanied by an affidavit stating the results of any prior motion for similar relief and specifying any new facts not previously shown that justify a new motion. CPLR 2217(b).

If the matter has not been assigned to an IAS judge, an ex parte motion (like any other motion) must be accompanied by a Request For Judicial Intervention (”RJI”). The moving party will receive an index number for the case from the court on filing the RJI form and must give written notice of the index number to all parties. The court will then assign the case to a judge as soon as practicable. See Uniform R. 202.8(b).

If the matter is too urgent to await judicial assignment, the filing party should inquire at the Clerk’s office for the procedure to bring his ex parte motion before a “standby” judge.

The court in a proper case may grant an order to show cause, to be served in lieu of a notice of motion, at a time and in a manner specified therein. CPLR 2214(d).

An order to show cause against a state body or officers must be served in addition to service upon the defendant or respondent state body or officers upon the attorney general by delivery to an assistant attorney general at an office of the attorney general in the county in which venue of the action is designated or if there is no office of the attorney general in such county, at the office of the attorney general nearest such county. CPLR 2214(d).

In ruling on an order to show cause, the judicial officer will usually determine the time and place of its return, who will serve the order, by what method the order will be served, and the court can include a provision staying or enjoining certain acts, i.e., a temporary restraining order. A signed order to show cause is returned to the party who presented it for service according to its terms. When served, it becomes equivalent to a notice of motion.

An order on an ex parte motion is not appealable. CPLR 5701(a)(2).

Timing:

A party seeking an ex parte order must notify all parties no later than 10:00 a.m. the court day before the ex parte appearance, absent a showing of exceptional circumstances that justify a shorter time for notice. CRC 3.1203(a) (renumbered eff 1/1/07). When notice of an ex parte application is given, the person giving notice must state with specificity the nature of the relief to be requested and the date, time, and place for the presentation of the application, and must attempt to determine whether the opposing party will appear to oppose the application. CRC 3.1204(a) (renumbered eff 1/1/07).

Ex Parte Motion Rules:

The court may grant ex parte relief without notice to the opposing party. An ex parte application presented without notice must be accompanied by a declaration that, for reasons specified, the applicant should not be required to inform the opposing party. CRC 3.1204(b)(3) (renumbered eff 1/1/07).

An ex parte application must state the name, address, and telephone number of any attorney known to the applicant to be an attorney for any party or, if no such attorney is known, the name, address, and telephone number of the party if known to the applicant. CRC 3.1202(a) (renumbered eff 1/1/07).

An applicant must make an affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte. CRC 3.1202(c) (renumbered eff 1/1/07).

When notice of an ex parte application is given, the person giving notice must:

(1) State with specificity the nature of the relief to be requested and the date, time, and place for the presentation of the application; and

(2) Attempt to determine whether the opposing party will appear to oppose the application. CRC 3.1204(a).

An ex parte application for an order must be accompanied by an affidavit or a declaration showing: (1) that the applicant informed the opposing party when and where the application would be made no later than 10:00 a.m. on the court day before the application was made and the notice given, including the date, time, manner, and name of the party informed, the relief sought, any response, and whether opposition is expected; or (2) that the applicant in good faith attempted to inform the opposing party but was unable to do so, specifying the efforts made to inform the opposing party; or (3) that, for reasons specified, the applicant should not be required to inform the opposing party. CRC 3.1204(b) (renumbered and amended eff 1/1/07).

If notice was provided later than 10:00 a.m. the court day before the ex parte appearance, the declaration regarding notice must explain the exceptional circumstances that justify the shorter notice, or, in unlawful detainer proceedings, when the notice given is reasonable. CRC 3.1204(c) (renumbered eff 1/1/07).

If an ex parte application has been made to the court and has been refused in whole or in part, any subsequent application of the same character or for the same relief, although made upon an alleged different state of facts, must include a full disclosure of any previous applications and the court’s actions. CRC 3.1202(b) (renumbered eff 1/1/07).

A request for ex parte relief must be in writing and include all of the following:

(1) An application containing the case caption and stating the relief requested;

(2) A declaration in support of the application making the required factual showing;

(3) A declaration based on personal knowledge of the notice given;

(4) A memorandum; and

(5) A proposed order.

CRC 3.1201 (renumbered and amended eff 1/1/07).

 Parties appearing at the ex parte hearing must serve the ex parte application or any written opposition on all other appearing parties at the first reasonable opportunity. Absent exceptional circumstances, no hearing may be conducted unless such service has been made. CRC 3.1206 (renumbered eff 1/1/07).

An ex parte application will be considered without a personal appearance of the applicant in the following cases only: (1) Applications to file a memorandum of points and authorities in excess of the applicable page limit; (2) Applications for extensions of time to serve pleadings; (3) Setting of hearing dates on alternative writs and orders to show cause; and (4) Stipulations by the parties or other orders of the court. CRC 3.1207 (amended and renumbered eff 1/1/08).

Ex Parte Motion Rules:

There are no provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing ex parte papers. Customarily, ex parte papers include: (1) the ex parte application, providing a short statement of the relief sought and the grounds on which the application is based; (2) a memorandum of points and authorities supporting the application, including any evidentiary declarations; (3) a declaration regarding notice to the opposing party; and (4) a proposed order.

A motion must be made in writing, (unless made during a hearing or at trial), and must set forth with particularity the grounds on which it is brought, and the relief or order sought. FRCP 7(b)(1).

Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name - or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer’s address, e-mail address, and telephone number. FRCP 11(a).

There are no provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that govern filing and service of ex parte papers. Customarily, ex parte papers are filed with the Court and personally served on opposing parties the same day. Many judges have special rules and procedures regarding ex parte applications.

“For each item or category the response shall state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested unless the request is objected to, in which event the reasons for the objection is made to part of an item or category, the part shall be specified.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350(b).
Compliance with Request

The producing party either must produce the documents or items specified as they are kept in the regular course of business, or must identify them to correspond to the categories in the request. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350(b).

A party objecting to a request for production must provide the reasons for the objection. If an objection is made only to part of a demand, the objectionable section must be specified. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350(b).

If a party withholds otherwise discoverable information on the basis of privilege, that party must make this claim expressly and must describe the nature of the withheld materials such that, without revealing the disputed information, other parties may assess the applicability of the privilege. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(5).

The party serving the request for production may move for an order compelling production under Rule 1.380. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350(b).

A party who has responded to a request for production with a response that was complete at the time it was provided is under no duty to supplement the response to include after-acquired documents. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(e).

If a party fails to respond to a request for production, the propounding party may move for an order compelling production under Rule 1.380. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350(b). If the court issues an order compelling production and the responding party still fails to reply, that party may be held in contempt of court and may face sanctions up to and including the dismissal of pleadings. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(b)(2).

The authorities cited in this At A Glance Guide are current as of the publication date. For authorities updated in real time, please see the SmartRules Guide for the litigation document you are drafting.

New York Law Journal
August 12, 2009 

The New York Legislature has set the stage for an expansion of the use of computers and facsimile machines to file notice of service and papers in civil actions throughout New York.

The bill, given final approval last week by the Senate, would allow electronic filing in most civil cases in Supreme Court, Surrogate’s Court, the Court of Claims and New York City Civil Court, with the parties’ consent and the approval of the state’s chief administrative judge.

The current law limits voluntary civil e-filing to certain case types in designated counties and courts.

The new legislation, A8956/S6003, also allows Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau to set up rules for mandatory electronic filing for some commercial cases in Manhattan Supreme Court as well as for tort cases in Westchester County and in an upstate county yet to be designated.

E-filing has never been mandatory in state courts in New York.

The legislation is designed to build on limited e-filing pilot programs that have been run in some civil courts over the past decade. Among the courts where e-filing is now allowed, with the parties’ consent, are Supreme courts in all five New York City boroughs, plus Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk counties.

It is also allowed voluntarily in Surrogate’s Courts in five counties, including Queens and Suffolk.

The bill, approved 51-5 by the Senate last Thursday, also passed in the Assembly in June. Legislative sponsors said Governor David A. Paterson is expected to sign the measure into law.

The bill was introduced at the behest of the Unified Court System and was one of the judiciary’s top legislative priorities in 2009.

The latest temporary extender of the e-filing program, approved in 2005, is set to expire on Sept. 1, 2009.

The legislation approved last week makes e-filing permanent in courts to be designated by the chief administrative judge and eliminates the need for lawmakers to extend the program in the future.

Court administrators said the acceptance of mandatory e-filing for both civil and criminal courts in the federal court system in New York since the mid-2000s, plus the increased use of electronic filing in state courts where it has been allowed, have convinced them that the time is right for an expansion of the state system.

“What has happened over time is it has been gaining momentum,” said Ronald P. Younkins, chief of operations for the Unified Court System. “In part, it reflects the fact that the bar is getting more used to doing business this way because that is the way the federal courts do business. Over time, everybody, the entire bar, is becoming more comfortable with working online and not just in the legal world. People are more comfortable on how to do it and with the security issues.”

Younkins said there is no timetable at the Unified Court System for adoption of mandatory e-filing, which he said the state court system is currently not equipped to handle. He said the system would work “very carefully” and “very deliberately” to implement the new legislation, especially the mandatory e-filing requirement in the three counties.

“As we proceed to implement this legislation, we will do so carefully, consulting with county clerks, local bar associations, judges and the affected courts,” Judge Pfau said in a statement. “By authorizing a new program that allows us to require e-filing in three counties for specific types of cases, the legislation makes significant progress toward taking full advantage of technology to make the justice system more efficient and cost-effective.”

The legislation was sponsored by Codes Committee Chairman Eric Schneiderman, D-Manhattan. The bill’s chief sponsor in the Assembly was Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Helene Weinstein, D-Brooklyn.

COURT RECORDS

One of the senators who voted against the measure, Michael F. Nozzolio, R-Seneca Falls, said county clerks in his central New York district have told him they are worried the court system is moving toward a mandated e-filing system they are not equipped to handle.

“This is not a bad proposal from its external merits,” Nozzolio said in an interview. “But for its potential expense, for the cost to localities, small counties would be required to acquire additional equipment. It is an unfunded mandate. It is something that should be on the back-burner for now.”

Four other upstate Republicans also voted against the bill.

When e-filing was first authorized in 1999 in state courts, Younkins said one case was filed electronically all year. By 2008, that number had climbed to more than 30,000.

About 1.8 million civil cases are filed each year in state courts.

“There is plenty of room for progress,” Younkins said.

Still, the New York State Courts Electronic Filing System has grown from 300 registered attorneys in 2002 to more than 10,000 as of the end of April, with almost 360,000 documents having been e-filed in the system, according to records.

A New York State Bar Association task force recommended expanded use of e-filing in 2007.

Younkins said enhanced e-filing should be more environmentally sound by reducing the use of paper, saving filing space in courts and cutting the cost of transporting the papers to courts.

Thomas F. Gleason, a partner in Gleason, Dunn, Walsh & O’Shea in Albany who has written about e-filing issues for the New York Law Journal, said electronic federal filing procedures in New York have shown that state court administrators are right to point to e-filing as the “way of the future.”

Gleason said e-filing would be of particular value to small practitioners trying cases in state court districts that are “bigger, more sprawling and more diverse in terms of the kinds of claims that are out there” than even lawyers arguing in federal courts.

Under the bill, the refusal of a party to consent to e-filing would not prevent the other party from filing electronically. The legislation would also allow attorneys and pro se litigants to opt-out of any e-filing requirement if they are not able to comply with it.

Current law authorizes e-filings for commercial, tort and tax certiorari cases in Supreme courts in Albany, Bronx, Essex, Kings, Livingston, Monroe, Nassau, Niagara, New York, Onondaga, Queens, Richmond, Suffolk, Sullivan and Westchester counties as well as for all Supreme Court cases in Broome and Erie counties. Surrogate’s courts in Chautauqua, Erie, Monroe, Queens and Suffolk are also covered by the current statute.

The new legislation would take geographic designations out of the statute and allow the chief administrative judge to authorize e-filing, by consent, anywhere in civil courts in the state.

The legislation stipulates, however, that mandatory e-filing cannot apply to matrimonial actions, election law proceedings, Article 78 proceedings or proceedings brought under the Mental Hygiene Law.

The chief administrative judge must report to the Legislature, the governor and the chief judge by April 1, 2012, on the state’s experience with a permanent e-filing program and with the experiment with mandatory filing.

Overview of Timing and Deadline Changes

The principal simplifying change in the amended time-computation rules is the adoption of a “days-are-days” approach.  Under the current rules, weekends and holidays are counted only if the period is 11 days or greater.  By contrast, under the amended rules, intermediate weekends and holidays are counted regardless of the length of the specified period.  The amended time-computation rules also address the special timing considerations that accompany electronic filing. Under the amended rules, unless a statute, local rule, or court order provides otherwise, the last day of a period for an electronic filing ends at midnight in the court’s time zone, while the last day for a paper filing ends when the clerk’s office is scheduled to close.  Further, the advisory committees concluded that virtually all short time deadlines should be extended to adjust for the effect of including intermediate weekends and holidays in calculating deadlines. Additionally, the amended rules use 7, 14, 21, and 28-day periods when possible, so that deadlines will usually fall on weekdays.

Description of Specific Changes

The 1-day period in Rule 6(c)(2) becomes seven days. The adjustment would extend the time for a party to serve any affidavit opposing a motion to seven days before a hearing.

The 1-day period in Rule 54(d) becomes 14 days. The increased time period corrects an unrealistic short time period for the clerk to give notice before taxing costs.

The 3-day period in Rule 55 becomes 7 days.

5-day periods in Rules 32, 54, and 81 become 7 days.

The 5-day period in Rule 6(c)(1) becomes 14 days. The adjustment extends the time for a party to serve a written motion and notice of hearing before the scheduled hearing date.

10-day periods in Rules 12, 14, 15, 23, 38, 59(c), 62, 65, 68, 72, 81, and Supplemental Rule C become 14 days.

10-day periods in Rules 50, 52, and 59(b), (d), and (e) become 28-day periods. The adjustment extends the present inadequate time allowed to prepare and file postjudgment motions.
.
The less-than-11-day period in Rule 32 becomes less than 14 days.

20-day periods in Rules 12, 15, 27, 53, 71.1, 81, Forms 3, 4, and 60, and Supplemental Rules B, C and G become 21 days.

Rule 6(b)’s reference to provisions for extending the times set by enumerated provisions in Rules 50, 52, 59, and 60, and Rule 59(c)’s reference to a 20-day extension are eliminated.

The timing provisions in Rules 56(a) and (c) are replaced by new provisions that recognize authority to set deadlines for summary-judgment motions by local rule or by court order and, in default of a local rule or court order, that allow a motion to be made at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery. The new provisions also establish default times for response and reply.

No Need to Panic, SmartRules Has the Answers

All of the SmartRules Guides will be updated and online on or before December 1, 2009 citing to the new and current version of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Subscribe!

If you want to be added to our subscription list, just send an email to alerts@smartrules.com with “subscribe” in the subject line.

The notice shall state the time and place for taking the deposition and the name and address of each person to be examined, if known, and, if the name is not known, a general description sufficient to identify him or the particular class or group to which he belongs. V.S.C.R. 4:5(b)(1).

If a subpoena duces tecum is to be served on the person to be examined, the designation of the materials to be produced as set forth in the subpoena shall be attached to or included in the notice. V.S.C.R. 4:5(b)(1).

Leave of court is not required for the taking of a deposition by plaintiff if the notice (A) states that the person to be examined is about to go out of the Commonwealth, or is about to go out of the United States, or is bound on a voyage to sea, and will be unavailable for examination unless his deposition is taken before expiration of the period for filing a responsive pleading under Rule 3:8, and (B) sets forth facts to support the statement. The plaintiff’s attorney shall sign the notice, and his signature constitutes a certification by him that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief the statement and supporting facts are true.

If a party shows that when he was served with notice under this subdivision (b)(2) he was unable through the exercise of diligence to obtain counsel to represent him at the taking of the deposition, the deposition may not be used against him. V.S.C.R. 4:5(b)(2).

The notice to a party deponent may be accompanied by a request made in compliance with Rule 4:9 for the production of documents and tangible things at the taking of the deposition. The procedure of Rule 4:9 shall apply to the request. V.S.C.R. 4:5(b)(2).

A party may in his notice name as the deponent a public or private corporation or a partnership or association or governmental agency and designate with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. The organization so named shall designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which he will testify. The persons so designated shall testify as to matters known or reasonably available to the organization. This subdivision (b)(6) does not preclude taking a deposition by any other procedure authorized in these Rules. V.S.C.R. 4:5(b)(6).

A deposition of a party, or any witness designated under Rule 4:5(b)(6) to testify on behalf of a party, shall be taken in the county or city in which suit is pending, in an adjacent county or city, at a place upon which the parties agree, or at a place that the court in such suit may, for good cause, designate. Good cause may include the expense or inconvenience of a non-resident party defendant appearing in one of the locations specified in this subsection. The restrictions as to parties set forth in this subdivision (a1)(i) shall not apply where no responsive pleading has been filed or an appearance otherwise made. V.S.C.R. 4:5(a1)(i).

Unless otherwise provided by the law of the jurisdiction where a non-party witness resides, a deposition of a non-party witness shall be taken in the county or city where the non-party witness resides, is employed, or has a principal place of business; at a place upon which the witness and the parties to the litigation agree; or at a place that the court may, for good cause, designate. V.S.C.R. 4:5(a1)(ii).

Depositions sought in Virginia pursuant to a subpoena issued under the authority of a foreign jurisdiction shall be subject to the provisions of the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act, Virginia Code 8.01-412.8 through 8.01-412.15. V.S.C.R. 4:5(a1)(iv)(eff 7/1/09).

Within another state, or within a territory or insular possession subject to the dominion of the United States, or in a foreign country, depositions may be taken (1) on notice before a person authorized to administer oaths in the place in which the examination is held, either by the law thereof or, where applicable, the law of the United States, or (2) before a person appointed or commissioned by the court in which the action is pending, and such a person shall have the power by virtue of such appointment or commission to administer any necessary oath and take testimony, or (3) pursuant to a letter rogatory. A commission or letter rogatory shall be issued upon application and notice and on terms that are just and appropriate. It is not requisite to the issuance of a commission or a letter rogatory that the taking of the deposition in any other manner is impracticable or inconvenient. A notice or commission may designate the person before whom the deposition is to be taken either by name or descriptive title. A commission or letter rogatory may be addressed “To the Appropriate Authority in (here name the state, territory, or country).” Witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify at depositions taken outside this state by process issued and served in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction where the deposition is taken or, where applicable, the law of the United States. Upon motion, the courts of this State shall issue a commission or letter rogatory requesting the assistance of the courts or authorities of the foreign jurisdiction.

The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by subpoena. V.S.C.R. 4:5(a). For more information regarding subpoenas, See Fairfax County SmartRules guide: SUBPOENAS.

No commission is necessary to take a deposition whether within or without the Commonwealth of Virginia. V.S.C.R. 4:3(c).

If the party giving the notice of the taking of a deposition fails to attend and proceed therewith and another party attends in person or by attorney pursuant to the notice, the court may order the party giving the notice to pay to such other party the reasonable expenses incurred by him and his attorney in attending, including reasonable attorney’s fees. V.S.C.R. 4:5(g)(1).

If the party giving the notice of the taking of a deposition of a witness fails to serve a subpoena upon him and the witness because of such failure does not attend, and if another party attends in person or by attorney because he expects the deposition of that witness to be taken, the court may order the party giving the notice to pay to such other party the reasonable expenses incurred by him and his attorney in attending, including reasonable attorney’s fees. V.S.C.R. 4:5(g)(2).

Within the Commonwealth of Virginia depositions may be taken before any person authorized by law to administer oaths, and if certified by his hand may be received without proof of the signature to such certificate. V.S.C.R. 4:3(a).

In any other State of the United States or within any territory or insular possession subject to the dominion of the United States, depositions may be taken before any officer authorized to take depositions in the jurisdiction wherein the witness may be, or before any commissioner appointed by the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. V.S.C.R. 4:3(b).

In a foreign state or country depositions shall be taken (1) before any American minister plenipotentiary, charge d’affaires, secretary of embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or commercial agent of the United States in a foreign country, or any other representative of the United States therein, including commissioned officers of the armed services of the United States, or (2) before the mayor, or other magistrate of any city, town or corporation in such country, or any notary therein. V.S.C.R. 4:3(d).

Any person before whom a deposition is taken outside the Commonwealth of Virginia shall certify the same with his official seal annexed; and, if he have none, the genuineness of his signature shall be authenticated by some officer of the same state or country, under his official seal, except that no seal shall be required of a commissioned officer of the armed services of the United States, but his signature shall be authenticated by the commanding officer of the military installation or ship to which he is assigned. V.S.C.R. 4:3(e).

There shall be no limit on the number of witnesses whose depositions may be taken by a party except by order of the court for good cause shown. V.S.C.R. 4:6A.

Unless the court orders otherwise, a deposition may be taken by telephone, video conferencing, or teleconferencing. A deposition taken by telephone, video conferencing, or teleconferencing shall be taken before an appropriate officer in the locality where the deponent is present to answer questions propounded to him. V.S.C.R. 4:5(b)(7).

Depositions may be taken by audio-visual means including, but not limited to, videoconferencing and teleconferencing, as authorized by and when taken in compliance with law. V.S.C.R. 4:7A(a). Virginia Supreme Court Rule 4:7A sets forth the requirements for audio visual deposition recording. V.S.C.R. 4:7A.
The authorities cited in this At A Glance Guide are current as of the publication date. For authorities updated in real time, please see the SmartRules Guide for the litigation document you are drafting.