Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00080/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00080-42/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Curtis Renee Jackson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have consented to 

magistrate judge jurisdiction in this case. (ECF No. 117.) This matter proceeds to trial on claims 

against Defendant J. Mendez for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and 

against Defendants C. Samonte, S. Daley, C. Nichols, N. Gonzales and F. Valdez for failure to 

intervene. A jury trial is confirmed for December 1, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 8 (BAM). 

On November 10, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to allow Defendant Samonte to testify at 

trial by videoconference. The motion was heard before the Honorable Barbara A. McAuliffe on 

November 13, 2015. Plaintiff appeared telephonically on his own behalf. Timothy Howard Delgado, 

of the California Attorney General’s Office, appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendants. 

///

CURTIS RENEE JACKSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

J. MENDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00080-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO ALLOW TRIAL TESTIMONY BY 

VIDEOCONFERENCE

(ECF No. 196)

Case 1:11-cv-00080-BAM Document 200 Filed 11/16/15 Page 1 of 4
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

At the hearing, the Court explained the motion and the basis for the motion to Plaintiff, and 

offered him an opportunity to file a written opposition or other response to the motion. Plaintiff orally 

declined, stating that he does not oppose the motion. (ECF No. 197.) As the motion is unopposed, it is 

deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

I. Discussion

In support of their motion, Defendants explain that Defendant Samonte is a former CDCR 

employee who moved to Texas in September 2015, and is currently the primary caretaker of two 

young children. (ECF No. 196-1, pp. 2-3.) She has now learned that her alternative caretaker is not 

available for the week of the December 1, 2015 trial in this matter. As a result, Defendant Samonte 

will either have to take her children with her to Fresno to attend the trial here, or have a family 

member fly to Texas to care for the children. Also, as a former employee, Defendant Samonte will not 

be reimbursed by CDCR for the travel expenses in this matter, which she estimates could exceed 

$1,500. (Id.) Defense counsel has been in discussions with the information technology officer at the 

United States District Court in Texas near Defendant Samonte’s current residence, and they believe 

she can give her testimony via live videoconference. Defense counsel will also be able to provide 

Defendant Samonte access to both parties’ exhibits during her testimony. (Id. at 5.)

A. Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43 provides that a court may, in its discretion, allow the 

telephonic transmission of testimony “[f]or good cause in compelling circumstances and with 

appropriate safeguards.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 968 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 

43.) The Advisory Committee Notes to the 1996 Amendments contain the following advice:

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 truth telling. The opportunity to judge 

the demeanor of a witness face-to-face is accorded great value in our 

tradition.

...

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.

Case 1:11-cv-00080-BAM Document 200 Filed 11/16/15 Page 2 of 4
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

...

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.

B. Analysis

Defendants have shown good cause to allow Defendant Samonte to testify by videoconference 

at the trial in this matter. The Ninth Circuit and other courts have found good cause to allow 

videoconference or telephonic testimony when a witness will be required to travel a significant 

distance, Beltran-Tirado v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 1179, 1185-86 (telephonic testimony allowed in 

deportation hearing where witness was in Missouri and hearing was in San Diego), and where a 

witness has responsibilities toward young children, Humbert v. O’Malley, 303 F.R.D. 461, 465-66 (D. 

Md. 2014) (Michigan-based witness’s travel to Maryland would interfere with care for her autistic, 

homeschooled young child). Here, Defendant Samonte will incur a combination of significant travel 

time and expenses which will not be reimbursed, and hardships with regard to finding childcare, if she 

is required to travel to Fresno to give her trial testimony.

More importantly, the use of a “contemporaneous transmission from a different location,” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 43—in this case the live video testimony of Defendant Samonte broadcasted from another 

federal court—will not prejudice Plaintiff. He does not contest the motion, and there will be adequate 

safeguards to ensure that the procedure does not interfere with his due process rights. “In assessing the 

safeguards of such contemporaneous transmissions, the courts focus on whether the testimony was 

made in open court, under oath, and whether the opportunity for cross examination was available.” 

F.T.C. v. Swedish Match N. Am., Inc., 197 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2000) (citing Official Airline Guides, 

Inc. v. Churchfield Publications, 756 F.Supp. 1393, 1399 n. 2, aff'd Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. 

Goss, 6 F.3d 1385 (9th Cir.1993); Beltran, 213 F.3d at 1185–86)). 

At trial in this case, Plaintiff will have the opportunity to question and cross-examine 

Defendant Samonte through live video feed in open court, while she is under oath, and during which 

questioning she will be visible to the Court, the jury, and the parties. The trier of fact will therefore 

have ample opportunity to assess her credibility and demeanor, and there is likely to be little practical 

difference between live in-court testimony and a live video transmission of her testimony from another 

Case 1:11-cv-00080-BAM Document 200 Filed 11/16/15 Page 3 of 4
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

court. To allow Plaintiff to call Defendant Samonte in his case-in-chief, if he chooses to do so, and to 

allow for the organized presentation of witnesses, Defendants are ordered to have Defendant Samonte 

present and prepared to give her videoconference testimony on the second day of trial in this matter, 

December 2, 2015, at 8:30 a.m. (Pacific Time) from the United States District Court in Texas nearest 

her residence. By this request, Defendant Samonte waives any right to be present for the duration of 

the trial and any prejudice to her from her failure to be present before the jury. The Court will also 

instruct the jury to consider and assess the credibility and weight of the videoconference testimony in 

the same manner as if the witness had been present in court to testify. To aid with this procedure, 

Defendants are ordered to file and serve a proposed jury instruction concerning the live 

videoconference trial testimony on or before November 18, 2015. 

II. Conclusion and Order

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to allow Defendant Samonte to give trial testimony via 

videoconference (ECF No. 196) is GRANTED;

2. Defendants SHALL make Defendant Samonte present and prepared to give her live 

videoconference testimony before this Court on December 2, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. (Pacific Standard 

Time) from the United States District Court in Texas nearest her residence;

3. Defendants SHALL provide a copy of both parties’ exhibits to Defendant Samonte at 

the time of her testimony; and

4. Defendants SHALL file and serve a proposed jury instruction concerning the live 

videoconference trial testimony on or before November 18, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00080-BAM Document 200 Filed 11/16/15 Page 4 of 4