Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00445/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00445-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Pamela Goodman, an unmarried

individual, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, a

Delaware limited liability company, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-445-PHX-JAT

ORDER

The Court’s Audio/Video Technologies Specialist has brought it to the Court’s

attention that, in the course of instructing Plaintiff’s counsel as to the uses of the courtroom

technology and equipment, Plaintiff's counsel indicated that he is planning to use Skype

and/or video conferencing to present witness testimony during the upcoming trial. 

As pointed out by the Court during the Final Pretrial Conference, Plaintiff’s counsel

has not made the required showing, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43, to entitle

him to use such equipment during the trial. 

Rule 43(a) requires, “At trial, the witnesses’ testimony must be taken in open court

unless a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, these rules, or other rules adopted by

the Supreme Court provide otherwise. For good cause in compelling circumstances and with

appropriate safeguards, the court may permit testimony in open court by contemporaneous

transmission from a different location.” 

Case 2:08-cv-00445-JAT Document 334 Filed 01/26/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 As the Court noted during the Final Pretrial Conference, Plaintiff’s Motion in

Limine to Permit Certain Witnesses to Testify at Trial by Telephone (Doc. 280)

“basically seeks a carte blanche order that would permit these unnamed, unidentified

folks to appear by some other means.” (Doc. 330 at 53: 6-9). 

2

 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 43 explain the importance of the rule and

the type of circumstances that would justify allowing out-of-court testimony: 

Contemporaneous transmission of testimony from a

different location is permitted only on showing good

cause in compelling circumstances. The importance of

presenting live testimony in court cannot be forgotten.

The very ceremony of trial and the presence of the

factfinder may exert a powerful force for truthtelling.

The opportunity to judge the demeanor of a witness

face-to-face is accorded great value in our tradition.

Transmission cannot be justified merely by showing that

it is inconvenient for the witness to attend the trial.

The most persuasive showings of good cause and

compelling circumstances are likely to arise when a

witness is unable to attend trial for unexpected reasons,

such as accident or illness, but remains able to testify

from a different place. 

FED.R.CIV.P.43advisory committee’s note to the 1996 amendment (emphasis added).

- 2 -

During the Final Pretrial Conference, the Court made clear that Plaintiff failed in

several particulars to show that she was entitled to submit such out-of-court testimony. See

Transcript of the Final Pretrial Conference, Doc. 330 at 53-54. The Court first advised

Plaintiff’s counsel that it could not allow such testimony, as Plaintiff’s counsel had made no

attempt to identify the specific witnesses from whom he sought to elicit out-of-court

testimony.1

 The Court then discussed Rule 43(a) and Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to show

good cause or compelling circumstances2

 that would permit Plaintiff to present such

testimony.

Accordingly, the Court reaffirms that, in the absence of such a showing, no such

testimony will be permitted at trial. Further, any such showing would have to be made by

Case 2:08-cv-00445-JAT Document 334 Filed 01/26/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 The importance of advance notice is also noted in the Advisory Committee’s notes

to Rule 43: 

A party who could reasonably foresee the circumstances

offered to justify transmission of testimony will have

special difficulty in showing good cause and the

compelling nature of the circumstances. Notice of a

desire to transmit testimony from a different location

should be given as soon as the reasons are known, to

enable other parties to arrange a deposition, or to secure

an advance ruling on transmission so as to know whether

to prepare to be present with the witness while testifying.

 . . . 

Safeguards must be adopted that ensure accurate

identification of the witness and that protect against

influence by persons present with the witness. Accurate

transmission likewise must be assured.

Other safeguards should be employed to ensure that

advance notice is given to all parties of foreseeable

circumstances that may lead the proponent to offer

testimony by transmission. Advance notice is important

to protect the opportunity to argue for attendance of the

witness at trial. Advance notice also ensures an

opportunity to depose the witness, perhaps by video

record, as a means of supplementing transmitted

testimony.

Id.

- 3 -

written motion sufficiently in advance of trial in order to give Defendants a fair chance to

respond and allow the Court to put adequate safeguards in place.3

DATED this 26th day of January, 2012.

Case 2:08-cv-00445-JAT Document 334 Filed 01/26/12 Page 3 of 3