Filed: Oct. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 17, 2018
Summary: PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 5 RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO PERMIT CONTEMPORANEOUS TESTIMONY FROM A REMOTE LOCATION UNDER RULE 43(A) Re: Dkt. No. 497 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . The Court has reviewed plaintiffs' motion to permit contemporaneous testimony from a remote location pursuant to Rule 43(a). (Dkt. No. 497 ("Motion").) As noted during the October 12, 2018 pretrial conference, this motion now only relates to Amit Jindal. 1 Jindal is TCS's Head of Immigration and works in TCS's Ro
Summary: PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 5 RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO PERMIT CONTEMPORANEOUS TESTIMONY FROM A REMOTE LOCATION UNDER RULE 43(A) Re: Dkt. No. 497 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . The Court has reviewed plaintiffs' motion to permit contemporaneous testimony from a remote location pursuant to Rule 43(a). (Dkt. No. 497 ("Motion").) As noted during the October 12, 2018 pretrial conference, this motion now only relates to Amit Jindal. 1 Jindal is TCS's Head of Immigration and works in TCS's Roc..
More
PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 5 RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO PERMIT CONTEMPORANEOUS TESTIMONY FROM A REMOTE LOCATION UNDER RULE 43(A)
Re: Dkt. No. 497
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
The Court has reviewed plaintiffs' motion to permit contemporaneous testimony from a remote location pursuant to Rule 43(a). (Dkt. No. 497 ("Motion").) As noted during the October 12, 2018 pretrial conference, this motion now only relates to Amit Jindal.1 Jindal is TCS's Head of Immigration and works in TCS's Rockville, Maryland office. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiffs would like to question Jindal regarding "the number of expats that travel each year to the U.S. to staff positions and associated filings/plans needed to enable expats to work in the U.S." as well as audits by PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ernst & Young. (Id.)
Pursuant to Rule 43(a), "[f]or good cause in compelling circumstances and with appropriate safeguards, the court may permit testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmission from a different location." Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a). Five elements factor into whether good cause exists to permit live videoconference testimony: "(1) the control exerted over the witness by the defendant; (2) the complex, multiparty, multi-state nature of the litigation; (3) the apparent tactical advantage, as opposed to any real inconvenience to the witness, that the defendant is seeking by not producing the witness voluntarily; (4) the lack of any true prejudice to the defendant; and (5) the flexibility needed to manage a complex multi-district litigation." 9A Wright & Miler, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2414; see also Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2016).
Although TCS employs, and therefore exerts some control, over Jindal and this suit is a multiparty, multi-state, class action, in light of the availability of witnesses Kant, Srinivasan, and Ganapathy, whom plaintiffs intend to ask about the PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ernst & Young audit reports (Motion at 5-7), and the Court's order granting in part defendant's motion to exclude at trial evidence of visa fraud, the Court finds that plaintiffs have not shown good cause in compelling circumstances to compel remote testimony of Jindal. Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE plaintiffs' motion to permit remote contemporaneous testimony.
This Order terminates Docket Number 497.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
