Free Speech

Eugene Volokh | 9.24.2025 2:15 PM

From Sidya v. Kmache, decided today by Magistrate Judge Regina Edwards (W.D. Ky.) (see this recent news story for more on Sidya and this Facebook page that appears to be Kmache's, and which reports 284K followers):

Plaintiff Yacoub Ould Sidya resides in Mauritania in Western Africa. But he initiated this defamation lawsuit in the Western District of Kentucky. The question before the Court is whether Plaintiff should have to travel 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, published a Facebook post ("the Post") about Plaintiff Yacoub Ould Sidya. The Post stated that police had surrounded Plaintiff's home, that Plaintiff owns an insurance company and "a plane to transport gold," and that the police entered his home to search it. According to Plaintiff, the information in the post is false.

The aftershock of the Post, Plaintiff explains, resulted in his house and phone being flooded with concerned visitors and callers, his sister getting into a car accident on her way to his house, his brother "also narrowly escaping bodily injury," and his son being bullied at school. Per Plaintiff, Defendant perpetuates this type of illegal scheme against other Mauritanians, by manufacturing defamatory fiction, posting about it on Facebook, and then offering to remove the content for a ransom payment.

One month after the Post, Plaintiff initiated this action in the Western District of Kentucky, alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendant….

A plaintiff is generally required to travel to the district where his lawsuit is pending for his deposition. The basis for this rule is practical —in most cases, the plaintiff "has selected the forum."

A plaintiff wishing to deviate from this general policy may bring a motion for protective order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), demonstrating good cause for protection against "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense[.]" To establish good cause, the moving party must demonstrate "specific prejudice or harm will result from the absence of a protective order." As the Eastern District of Michigan recently explained:

The fact that depositions by remote means may be an economical and appropriate tool in some instances, at least where the parties agree on the means, or........

© Reason.com