Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00047/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00047-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:0045 Federal Trade Commission Act

---

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

Federal Trade Commission,

Plaintiff,

v. 

James D. Noland, Jr., et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-20-00047-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for leave to present live testimony 

at the preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for February 12, 2020. (Doc. 56.) Initially, 

Defendants sought leave to present live testimony from their own witnesses, as well as 

leave to cross-examine the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) witnesses, at the 

preliminary injunction hearing. (Id.) However, Defendants subsequently notified the 

Court that they are no longer seeking leave to present their own witnesses (but are still 

seeking an order compelling the FTC to make its witnesses available for crossexamination). (Doc. 73.) The FTC, in turn, has clarified that it “has no objection to 

Defendants’ cross-examining the FTC’s declarants” but “request[s] leave to cross-examine 

Defendant James D. Noland, Jr., who submitted a declaration on Defendants’ behalf.” 

(Doc. 74 at 4.)

The Court sees no need to enter the order Defendants seek. The FTC has indicated 

it will make its witnesses available for cross-examination. (Doc. 74 at 4.) The Court has 

no reason to doubt that representation and accordingly doesn’t see the point in ordering the 

Case 2:20-cv-00047-DWL Document 83 Filed 02/11/20 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

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

FTC to do something it is already planning to do. 

The FTC’s request to cross-examine Noland will be denied. The Court previously 

recognized that Defendants have a right to cross-examine witnesses at the preliminary 

injunction hearing. (Doc. 59 at 2, citing United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation Dist., 31 

F.3d 1428, 1442 (9th Cir. 2014).) That right, however, has only been recognized for the 

party opposing the preliminary injunction. Gila Valley, 31 F.3d at 1442 (“The opposing 

party must be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the moving party’s witnesses . . . 

.”) (internal quotes and citation omitted). The Court has not found, and the FTC has not 

provided, authority that requires the party seeking a preliminary injunction be allowed to 

cross-examine the non-movant’s witnesses. Cf. Jackson v. Fair, 846 F.2d 811, 820 (1st 

Cir. 1988) (“[The moving party] presents no support for the proposition that a plaintiff, 

without more, is entitled to cross-examine defendant’s witnesses to prove that they lied in 

their affidavits.”). The Court, as the finder of fact, may find Noland’s declaration less 

compelling than if Noland testified and was subjected to cross-examination, but that is a 

choice for Defendants to make. They are not required to make Noland available at the 

hearing. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for leave to present live 

testimony (Doc. 56) is denied as moot to the extent it seeks an order compelling the FTC 

to make its witnesses available at the preliminary injunction hearing. Likewise, the FTC’s 

request to make Noland available for cross-examination (Doc. 74) is denied. 

Dated this 11th day of February, 2020.

Case 2:20-cv-00047-DWL Document 83 Filed 02/11/20 Page 2 of 2