Ought to “Plaintiff … Have to Travel from Mauritania to Louisville … for His Deposition”?

Plaintiff Yacoub Ould Sidya resides in Mauritania in Western Africa. But he initiated this defamation lawsuit within the Western District of Kentucky. The query earlier than the Court is whether or not Plaintiff ought to should journey from Mauritania to Louisville, Kentucky for his deposition….

On March 17, 2024, Defendant Sidi Mohamed Kmache, a social media influencer from Mauritania that resides in Louisville, Kentucky, revealed a Facebook put up (“the Post”) about Plaintiff Yacoub Ould Sidya. The Post said that police had surrounded Plaintiff’s dwelling, that Plaintiff owns an insurance coverage firm and “a plane to transport gold,” and that the police entered his dwelling to look it. According to Plaintiff, the data within the put up is fake.

The aftershock of the Post, Plaintiff explains, resulted in his home and telephone being flooded with involved guests and callers, his sister getting right into a automobile accident on her solution to his home, his brother “also narrowly escaping bodily injury,” and his son being bullied in school. Per Plaintiff, Defendant perpetuates one of these unlawful scheme towards different Mauritanians, by manufacturing defamatory fiction, posting about it on Facebook, after which providing to take away the content material for a ransom cost.

One month after the Post, Plaintiff initiated this motion within the Western District of Kentucky, alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional misery towards Defendant….

A plaintiff is usually required to journey to the district the place his lawsuit is pending for his deposition. The foundation for this rule is sensible —typically, the plaintiff “has selected the forum.”

A plaintiff wishing to deviate from this common coverage could deliver a movement for protecting order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), demonstrating good trigger for defense towards “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense[.]” To set up good trigger, the shifting social gathering should exhibit “specific prejudice or harm will result from the absence of a protective order.” As the Eastern District of Michigan lately defined:

The indisputable fact that depositions by distant means could also be a cost-effective and acceptable software in some cases, no less than the place the events agree on the means, or the place extraordinary circumstances such because the medical infirmity of a deponent make an in-person examination unreasonably dangerous, doesn’t imply that good trigger has been proven to compel the taking of depositions by distant means throughout the board for all plaintiffs, based mostly merely on the routine comfort and expense that’s incident to participation in litigation by any social gathering who chooses to file go well with in a discussion board distant from their residence.

… Plaintiff provides 4 causes for why he ought to obtain safety from showing within the United States for his deposition. He first alleges he’s bodily not permitted to enter the United States based mostly on his citizenship and immigration issues. Second, Plaintiff claims he’s afraid of flying. Plaintiff thirdly asserts the journey prices can be unreasonable. And lastly, Plaintiff asserts Defendant will face no prejudice from a distant deposition.

1. Plaintiff’s Citizenship

First, Plaintiff alleges that he’s not a U.S. citizen, that his inexperienced card expired in July 2025, and that he has no visa or paperwork permitting his entry to the United States. Nor can he apply for a journey visa, Plaintiff claims, as a result of “there is a long waiting list for appointments” and even when accredited, “there is a long processing time for tourist visas.” As set forth in Mr. Raft’s Declaration [Raft is defendant’s former immigration lawyer -EV], Plaintiff believes he has deserted his authorized everlasting resident (“LPR”) standing within the United States as a consequence of his in depth absence. He claims to haven’t entered the United States since someday in 2020 or longer. Mr. Raft opines that Plaintiff would face a considerable threat of potential detention upon his arrival within the United States and placement in removing proceedings have been he to aim entry based mostly on his seemingly deserted LPR standing. Plaintiff depends on one other case from this District, Murillo v. Dillard, to argue {that a} lack of immigration paperwork is the kind of issue or expense warranting safety from conducting a deposition within the United States.

Defendant responds that Mr. Raft’s Declaration, whereas informative, doesn’t precisely painting Plaintiff’s immigration standing as a result of he’s solely providing opinion on what might occur if Plaintiff returned to the United States utilizing his LPR standing. The Declaration, Defendant argues, is silent on whether or not Plaintiff might apply for a returning resident visa or journey visa even when his LPR

standing is deserted. Defendant additionally emphasizes that Plaintiff has robust ties to the United States, particularly proudly owning a house in Northern Kentucky and having affiliations with organizations there, in addition to robust enterprise ties in different nations, together with Niger, Senegal, Mali, and the United Arab Emirates. Plaintiff’s connections and monetary circumstances, Defendant explains, set him other than different overseas nationals in search of to enter the United States. To conclude, Defendant states Plaintiff has offered hypothesis however no concrete proof on his means to journey to the United States.

A plaintiff’s means to safe a visa for journey doesn’t essentially represent good trigger for avoiding an in-person deposition. For occasion, in Charr v. King, the Southern District of Florida discovered that the plaintiff ought to have “foreseen and appropriately managed the visa requirements in light of him initiating this litigation ….” Likewise, in Azizpur v. AAA Life Insurance Company, the Central District of California discovered plaintiff had not established good trigger to stop journey from Iran to the United States for his deposition the place the plaintiff didn’t “show any diligence in trying to enter the United States.” Like the plaintiffs in Charr and Azizpur, Plaintiff has not tried to acquire a visa to enter the United States for functions of his deposition.

Murillo v. Dillard, relied upon by Plaintiff, is distinguishable. In that case, the court docket ordered protection counsel to journey to Mexico to take the depositions of the plaintiffs, a bunch of twenty-four impoverished migrant farm staff with expired H-2A visas. Based on the plaintiffs’ declarations, the court docket decided their present immigration standing made journey to the United States for the depositions “potentially impossible.”

Plaintiff here’s a single particular person, with no monetary hardship, that has solely speculated as to his present citizenship. Mr. Raft’s Declaration states what might occur if Plaintiff tried to reenter the United States utilizing his presumably deserted LPR standing. But Plaintiff has not proven, by Mr. Raft’s Declaration or in any other case, that he’s ineligible to use for a journey visa or to enter the United States. Troubling, additionally, is Plaintiff’s illustration in the course of the listening to that he plans to journey to the United States for trial within the case. If his LPR standing is deserted, as he alleges, he should receive a journey visa that he presently claims would take many months and can be an undue burden. Since submitting this motion nineteen months in the past, Plaintiff has recognized that he would want to bodily seem within the United States for trial and for his deposition but made no makes an attempt to safe the required citizenship and journey paperwork. Without demonstrating diligent efforts, the Court can not discover good trigger for defense on these grounds.

[B.] Plaintiff’s Fear of Flying

Plaintiff alleges a “documented fear of flying” as a consequence of his witnessing two colleagues being badly burned in an airplane crash in 2012. Plaintiff accuses Defendant of exploiting this worry and inflicting additional emotional misery by requiring Plaintiff to take flights that would whole “well over 24 hours.” To problem Plaintiff’s purported worry of flying, Defendant produces an article from the African Leadership Magazine, reporting that Plaintiff was flying to London in June 2025 for a summit.

Defendant’s manufacturing of the article from the African Leadership Magazine calls into query the extent and impact Plaintiff’s purported worry of flying has on his means to journey internationally. As do Defendant’s unrebutted allegations that Plaintiff owns a personal airplane. Additionally, Plaintiff doesn’t present, and the Court has not independently positioned, any case legislation the place a plaintiff’s worry of flying has certified pretty much as good trigger for shielding Plaintiff from touring for his deposition. {On the opposite, no less than one court docket has acknowledged {that a} social gathering’s worry of flying mustn’t “require someone else to take to the skies[.]”}

[C.] Travel Costs

Based on web searches, a roundtrip ticket from Mauritania to Louisville would value practically $5,000.00, which Plaintiff characterizes as “significant and unnecessary.” Plaintiff believes being compelled to shoulder such journey bills amplifies the injury inflicted by Defendant’s publication of false statements on Facebook. Defendant responds that Plaintiff is a multi- millionaire, maybe billionaire, who owns a number of worldwide companies, together with an airline. And Defendant argues that even when Plaintiff can not use his non-public plane to journey for his deposition, business flights can be found from Mauritania to Louisville for as little as $1,300.00.

A plaintiff making an attempt to keep away from an in-person deposition as a consequence of monetary hardship should submit pertinent details about his monetary circumstances. Whether flying from Mauritania to Louisville is pricey and whether or not Plaintiff can afford such an expense are separate inquiries. Plaintiff should show he’s unable to afford the expense of the journey.

But Plaintiff solely vaguely claims the journey prices are unreasonable. He doesn’t state he can not afford such an expense. And Plaintiff didn’t rebut Defendant’s allegations from both the pre-conference memorandum or in the course of the listening to relating to his substantial wealth. Because Plaintiff submits no info relating to his monetary circumstances to show hardship, the expense of journey doesn’t represent good trigger for defense from an in-person deposition.

[D.] Prejudice to Defendant

Finally, Plaintiff argues that conducting his deposition remotely wouldn’t prejudice Defendant. Plaintiff emphasizes the problems within the case are simple, the deposition can be restricted in scope, and Defendant has not served any discovery on this case to this point. Defendant, however, maintains prejudice a distant deposition is prejudicial as a result of nuances within the Plaintiff’s habits and demeanor wouldn’t translate over digital platforms.

Other courts have acknowledged that distant depositions preclude “assessment of a deponent’s demeanor, affect, non-verbal responses, and facial expressions.” The credibility of the plaintiff, because the initiating social gathering to the litigation, is “presumably critical,” heightening the necessity for correct evaluation. Beyond credibility points, a distant deposition can current further logistical challenges, together with adapting to time variations, guaranteeing the deponent’s acceptable habits, and translation points.

Even although the problems on this case are comparatively simple, Plaintiff will probably be offering testimony essential to the emotional misery and reputational hurt he endured from the Post. This might end in emotionally charged testimony, heightening the necessity for Defendant to evaluate Plaintiff’s credibility in particular person. The Court, due to this fact, finds the unfairness Defendant might endure from Plaintiff’s distant deposition counsels towards entry of a protecting order.