Having considered the written submissions of the parties, the record and the applicable law, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART for the following reasons.

I. LOCATION OF THE CREWMEMBERS’ DEPOSITIONS

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1) provides that “[a] party who wants to depose a person by oral questions ... must state the time and place of the deposition.” Generally, this means that the party may choose a deposition's location. 8A Wright, Miller & Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2112 at 523 (West 2019). “The general rule is that while a party noticing a deposition ordinarily selects the location for the deposition to take place, it is presumed that this will occur at the location of the residence of an individual ..., unless the interests of justice require otherwise.” Celebration Church, Inc. v. United Nat'l Ins. Co., 2015 WL 13532831, at *2 (E.D. La. Dec. 15, 2015) (citing Salter v. Upjohn Co., 593 F.2d 649, 651 (5th Cir. 1979); Dwelly v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 214 F.R.D. 537, 541 (D.Minn. 2003)). “When a dispute arises about the location of a deposition, the final determination is within the [c]ourt's discretion.” Id. at *3 (citing Paleteria La Michoacana, Inc. v. Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. de C.V., 292 F.R.D. 19, 22 (D.D.C.2013) (citing Fin. Gen. Bankshares, Inc. v. Lance, 80 F.R.D. 22, 23 (D.D.C.1978)). Additionally, a court may order that a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote means. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4) (emphasis added). “For purposes of this rule ..., the deposition takes place where the deponent answers the questions.” Id.

Plaintiff requests an order compelling foreign national non-party witness crewmembers to appear in New Orleans for depositions. Record Doc. No. 36-1 at p. 5. Defendants state in their opposition memorandum that the crewmembers are willing to participate in either videoconference depositions or in-person depositions in Varna, Bulgaria. Record Doc. No. 38 at p. 8. Defendants state that the crewmembers “all live in Varna, Bulgaria, and all are currently off-contract from the vessel, meaning they are not currently employees of either defendant. Moreover, these crewmembers do not have valid vias to travel to the [United States], and would need to apply for visas if compelled to testify in the [United States].” Record Doc. No. 38 at p. 6. Plaintiffs argue that “deposition[s] by videoconference [are] extremely impractical [because] ... [t]he deponents will almost certainly be asked to review and comment upon electronic vessel data ... [and d]oing so over video conference is extremely difficult and ineffective due to problems with language barriers, internal electronics, and witness cross-examination with documents.” Record Doc. No. 36-1 at p. 6.

*2 Under these circumstances, and considering “the relative wealth of the parties, and the expenses and burdens incurred by conducting depositions in [Varna, Bulgaria],” Redmond v. Poseidon Pers. Servs., S.A., 2009 WL 3486385, at *3 (E.D. La. Oct. 23, 2009), I can discern no reason to order that these non-party Bulgarian crew members must appear in New Orleans for in-person depositions. I agree with defendants that “depositions [of these crewmembers] by videoconference [is] the most cost-effective means, ... would be the most practical and reasonable approach....,” and can be easily accomplished utilizing the conference room and technology that defendants propose to use in Varna, Bulgaria. Record Doc. No. 38 at pp. 7, 9.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this portion of plaintiff's motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the crewmembers’ depositions must be conducted by remote electronic means, which counsel must cooperatively schedule and arrange.

II. ELECTRONIC CHART DISPLAY AND INFORMATION SYSTEM DATA

The scope of permissible discovery is established in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and extends only to that which is both relevant to claims and defenses in the case and within the Rule's proportionality limits. However, “[o]n motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules ... if it determines that (1) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; [or] (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; ...” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Additionally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E) provides, in pertinent part, that

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendants to produce “a playable copy of” the M/V STRANDJA's Electronic Chart Display and Information Systems Data. Record Doc. No. 36. In plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, however, Marquette requested that this data be produced “in native format,” Record Doc. Nos. 36-4; 36-5 at p. 8 (Request for Production No. 17), and defendants state that they have complied with this request. Record Doc. No. 38 at p. 3. Additionally, defendants state that “Marquette has never sent formal discovery requesting a ‘playable’ version of the [Electronic Chart Display and Information System] data. Thus, there is no pending discovery request in dispute.” Id. at p. 5, n. 10.

Plaintiff specified the form in which this data was to be produced; i.e., native format. Because defendants have complied with plaintiff's request and have produced the data in native format, they would ordinarily not be required to produce this data in another form. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E). However, the motion papers indicate that the data cannot be played back on a computer using any kind of software, but must instead be played using an Electronic Chart Display and Information System of the same make and model as that utilized by the M/V STRANDJA, and then recorded by external video camera. Record Doc. No. 38-1 at p.3. “According to both the [Federal] Rules and the [2006] Committee Notes, the prevailing requirement [in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34] is that the electronically stored information be provided in a ‘reasonably usable’ form.....” Gutierrez v. State Farm Lloyds, 2015 WL 13188353, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2015) (citing the Committee Notes on Rules–2006 Amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, which provide that: “[s]ome electronically stored information may be ordinarily maintained in a form that is not reasonably usable by any party ... whether a producing party should be required to convert such information to a more usable form, or should be required to produce it at all, should be addressed under Rule 26(b)(2)(B).”).

*3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) provides that

The requested data is neither unreasonably cumulative nor duplicative or obtainable from another source, and plaintiffs have not had the opportunity to obtain it otherwise. The Electronic Chart Display and Information System data is clearly relevant and proportional to the claims and defenses of each party in this case. Defendants have not demonstrated that the data is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. Instead, in defendants’ opposition memorandum, they state that “they will make the [M/V] STRANDJA available to Marquette if [it wishes] to hire a surveyor or technician (or whomever) to board the vessel, play back the [Electronic Chart Display and Information System] data, and record the playback on an external device.” Id. at p. 5, n. 11. This manner of production is entirely consistent with the procedure contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1) and (2), which provides that

(emphasis added).

However, Marquette states that it is “unable to identify a technician to [board the M/V STRANDJA and record the data],” Record Doc. No. 36-1 at p. 7, but that “[t]here is nothing which prevents STRANDJA interests from directing the crewmembers aboard the vessel, or a technician, to preserve the video [Electronic Chart Display and Information System] data in a playable format which we understand remains available on the ... console aboard the bridge ....” Id. at p. 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this portion of plaintiff's motion is GRANTED as follows: Defendants must identify and arrange for a representative to board the M/V STRANDJA at any port where the vessel is docked in the ordinary course of its business, including at Santarum, Brazil, at a convenient but expeditious time and date, and take a video recording of the data, which defendants must produce to plaintiff no later than March 4, 2020. Additionally, because defendants failed to produce the data in a reasonably usable form, defendants must bear the costs of paying the representative to board the M/V STRANDJA and record the data on an external video camera for production to plaintiff.

*4 New Orleans, Louisiana, this 19th day of February, 2020.