video tapes for use in the case.” Morrison v. Reichhold Chems., Inc., 97 F.3d 460, 465 (11th Cir.1996). State Farm argues that videotaping Lee’s deposition was necessary because he was very uncooperative in communicating with State Farm, he failed to appear for one scheduled deposition, and he appeared late for another scheduled deposition. For these reasons, State Farm argues that it had strong reason to suspect that Lee might fail to appear at trial, in which event playing his videotaped deposition would have been preferable to merely reading his deposition transcript. The Court finds this explanation sufficient and concludes that State Farm has adequately explained its need to videotape Lee’s deposition. See Baisden v. I’m Ready Prods., Inc., 793 F.Supp.2d 970, 977 (S.D.Tex.2011) (<HOLDING>). The only remaining issue is whether State
holding that party could recover for videotaped depositions of witnesses whose live attendance at trial was uncertain or whose credibility was sharply disputed holding trial court is sole and exclusive judge of witnesses credibility holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial holding trial court free to evaluate credibility of witnesses holding that plaintiff whose truck was demolished in an accident could not recover lost profits unless he could show that he could not obtain a suitable substitute vehicle