Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-02579/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-02579-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham 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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

WALL MOUNTAIN COMPANY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GARY EDWARDS,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 08-2579 PVT

INTERIM ORDER AND TENTATIVE

RULING RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

APPEAR AT TRIAL BY TELEPHONE

On March 16, 2010, Defendant filed a motion to appear by telephone at trial (and any other

meeting that requires his presence). Plaintiff opposed the motion. Having reviewed the papers

submitted by the parties, the court finds it appropriate to issue this interim order. Because Defendant

failed to properly notice this motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-2, there is currently no deadline

for the filing of reply papers, and Defendant has not yet filed any reply. Based on the motion and the

file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant shall file his reply papers no later than May 18,

2010.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is TENTATIVELY DENIED with

regard to the trial of this matter. Pursuant to Rule 43(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

court may permit testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmission from a different location

Case 5:08-cv-02579-PVT Document 86 Filed 05/11/10 Page 1 of 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

ORDER, page 2

only for “good cause in compelling circumstances.” As the Advisory Committee Notes explain:

“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.”

At this point Defendant has made no factual showing that compelling circumstances exist

that warrant an order allowing him to appear at trial by contemporaneous transmission. However,

Defendant may file reply papers if he believes he can make such a showing. Any such showing must

be based on competent evidence – including declarations under penalty of perjury and properly

authenticated documentary evidence – not just unsupported arguments.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant may appear by telephone at the May 25, 2010

trial setting conference. Defendant shall contact chambers (408-535-5378) no late than May 21,

2010 to make the necessary arrangements.

Dated: 5/10/10

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:08-cv-02579-PVT Document 86 Filed 05/11/10 Page 2 of 2