Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01773/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01773-36/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW R. LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-1773-DAD-SKO (PC)

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

RESCHEDULE EVIDENTIARY HEARING 

and ON STIPULATION FOR PLAINTIFF TO 

APPEAR AT EVIDENTIARY HEARING VIA 

VIDEO CONFERENCE

(Docs. 177, 182-2)

ORDER VACATING ORDER AND WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM

(Doc. 175)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Andrew R. Lopez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 10, 2010. This action is 

currently proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed on March 23, 2012, against 

Defendants Garcia, Zamora, Espinosa, Jackson, Drew, Olmedo, Munoz, Fields, White, Rousseau, 

Martinez, Beer, Gray, Beard, and Gipson (“Defendants”) for violating Plaintiff’s federal 

constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of his conditions of confinement at California 

State Prison, Corcoran, in Corcoran, California in 2008 and 2009.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust was resolved with the 

exception of Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Garcia and Beer 

arising out of incidents alleged to have occurred on July 22, 2009, July 24, 2009, and September 

Case 1:10-cv-01773-DAD-SKO Document 183 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 4
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

2

30, 2009. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). With respect to those claims, the Court 

determined that there are disputed factual issues requiring an evidentiary hearing. Williams v. 

Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191-92 (9th Cir. 2015); Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 

2014) (en banc). 

The evidentiary hearing was originally scheduled to take place on October 22, 2015. 

(Doc. 143.) It has been rescheduled twice and is currently scheduled to take place on August 23, 

2016. (Docs. 145, 147, 170, 171.) 

On August 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to reschedule the evidentiary hearing. (Doc. 

177.) Defendants’ response included a signed stipulation for Plaintiff to appear at the evidentiary 

hearing via video conference and for revocation of the transportation writ for Plaintiff’s personal 

appearance. (Doc. 182-2.) 

ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff May Appear Via Video Conference

Defendants request that “the Court issue a warning to Plaintiff on the possible effects his 

video conference appearance may have on the Court’s ability to determine issues of credibility . . 

. .” (Doc. 182, p. 2.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) provides that a court may “permit testimony in open 

court by contemporaneous transmission from a different location” for good cause in compelling 

circumstances and with appropriate safeguards. 

Appropriate safeguards exist where the opposing party's ability to conduct crossexamination is not impaired, the witness testifies under oath in open court, and the witness's 

credibility can be assessed adequately. See Beltran-Tirado v. Immigration and Naturalization 

Service, 213 F.3d 1179, 1186 (9th Cir. 2000); Alderman v. SEC, 104 F.3d 285, 288 n. 4 (9th 

Cir.1997); Scott Timber, Inc. v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 498, 500 (Fed. Clms. 2010). It is 

appropriate to consider the possible effect of a witness's physical absence from the courtroom on 

his or her truthfulness. See Humbert v. O’Malley, 303 F.R.D. 461, 465 (Dist. MD, 2014); Federal 

Trade Commission v. Swedish Match North America, Inc., 197 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.C. 2000); Scott 

Timber, 93 Fed. Cl. at 501.

Case 1:10-cv-01773-DAD-SKO Document 183 Filed 08/10/16 Page 2 of 4
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 purpose of hearing live testimony is to “enable[ ] the finder of fact to see the witness's 

physical reactions to questions, to assess the witness's demeanor, and to hear the tone of the 

witness's voice.” United States v. Mejia, 69 F.3d 309, 315 (9th Cir.1995). Where the veracity of 

witnesses is at issue, the court must make a credibility determination by listening to the witnesses, 

testing their story, and gauging their demeanor. Earp v. Oronski, 431 F.3d 1158, 1169-1170 (9th 

Cir.2005). Finally, “[i]n evaluating credibility, the court should consider factors such as the 

opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the things testified to; the witness' 

memory; the witness' manner while testifying; the witness' interest in the outcome of the case and 

any bias or prejudice; whether other evidence contradicted the witness' testimony; the 

reasonableness of the witness' testimony in light of all the evidence; and any other factors that 

bear on believability.” Henry v. Marshall, No. CIVS940916JKSEFBP, 2010 WL 2179896, at *5 

(E.D. Cal. May 27, 2010). Because a witness testifying by video is observed directly with little, if 

any, delay in transmission, video testimony can sufficiently enable cross-examination and 

credibility determinations, as well as preserve the overall integrity of the proceedings. See 

Parkhurst v. Belt, 569 F.3d 995, 1003 (8th Cir.2009); Scott Timber, 93 Fed. Cl. at 501; see also 

Swedish Match, 197 F.R.D. at 2 (finding that there was “no practical difference between live 

testimony and contemporaneous video transmission” in proceedings in that case). 

As long as Plaintiff has a duplicate set of the exhibits to be used during the hearing so that 

all those involved have access to and are able to contemporaneously view a document being 

discussed, the Court finds it appropriate to allow Plaintiff to appear at the evidentiary hearing via 

video conference.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion to reschedule/vacate the evidentiary hearing, filed on August 1, 

2016, is DENIED;

(2) The parties’ stipulation for Plaintiff to appear at the evidentiary hearing via video 

conference is APPROVED;

(3) The Order and Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum for Plaintiff to appear in 

Case 1:10-cv-01773-DAD-SKO Document 183 Filed 08/10/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

person at the evidentiary hearing, issued on July 20, 2016, is VACATED;

(4) On or before Monday, August 15, 2016; Defendants’ SHALL provide Plaintiff with 

a duplicate copy of the binder1of exhibits to be used during the evidentiary hearing;2

(5) The assistance of the Litigation Coordinator at Pelican Bay State Prison is requested 

to reserve and facilitate the use of the video conferencing equipment at that facility 

for the evidentiary hearing in this case on August 23, 2016, from 9:30 a.m. until the 

hearing concludes; and

(6) The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Litigation 

Coordinator at Pelican Bay State Prison.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 Defense counsel shall confer with the Litigation Coordinator at the facility where Plaintiff is currently 

located to ensure that the copy of exhibits Plaintiff receives complies with all necessary safety and/or 

security requirements.

2

This shall consist of a complete set of all exhibits to be used at the evidentiary hearing -- whether jointly 

or separately offered/used. This set must comply with the Scheduling Order for Evidentiary Hearing. (See 

Doc. 170.) 

Case 1:10-cv-01773-DAD-SKO Document 183 Filed 08/10/16 Page 4 of 4