the Court has not found any case in which a court has considered whether an internet search is “other paper” as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. 1446(b), it is not beyond the realm of possibility that, in this digital age, an internet search could be “other paper.” “Other paper is [after all] a broad term and includes any relevant information received by Defendants.” Chavez v. Kincaid, 15 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1123 (D.C.N.M.1998) (citing Yarnevic v. Brink’s, Inc., 102 F.3d 753, 755 (4th Cir. 1996)). Moreover, “other paper” as contemplated by § 1446(b) “is not restricted solely to papers filed in [a] case.” Sunburst Bank v. Summit Acceptance Corp., 878 F.Supp. 77, 81 (S.D.Miss.1995). Nor must “other paper” be paper. See, e.g., Trotter v. Steadman Motors, Inc., 47 F.Supp.2d 791, 793 (S.D.Miss.1999) (<HOLDING>). In the case sub judi-ce, the information
holding that a deposition that was not presented to the trial court could not be considered on appeal holding that deposition testimony may constitute other paper holding that selfserving deposition testimony standing alone is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment holding if a deposition is taken for discovery only  not for use at trial the deposition is not a stage of trial for which the defendant must be present holding that admission of one defendants deposition was proper where she was present at the deposition even though she was represented at the time by the same counsel as her codefendants