Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04066/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04066-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Breach of Contract

---

Case No. 15-cv-04066-NC 

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEPPER, N.A.,

Plaintiff,

v.

EXPANDI, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.15-cv-04066-NC 

ORDER REQUIRING THE 

PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF ALL 

WITNESSES AT TRIAL

A pretrial conference is set in this case on May 11, 2016, and trial is set on May 16, 

2016. In its motions in limine, defendants seek to permit the video or telephonic testimony 

of several witnesses. Dkt. No. 67. Plaintiff opposes the request. Dkt. No. 61. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) provides that “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.” The commentary to the 

rule elaborates that “By itself, travel inconvenience generally does not constitute good 

cause and compelling circumstances for permitting transmitted testimony.” Additionally, 

the Advisory Committee Notes to the 1996 Amendments contain the following advice: 

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. . . . The most persuasive 

showings of good cause and compelling circumstances are 

likely to arise when a witness is unable to attend trial for 

Case 5:15-cv-04066-NC Document 69 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 15-cv-04066-NC 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

unexpected reasons, such as accident or illness, but remains 

able to testify from a different place. . . . 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.

Accord Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). In Palmer, the Ninth 

Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to deny a motion to permit telephonic testimony 

and noted that it is within the district court’s discretion to decide how a witness may 

appear at trial. Id. 

Here, defendants ask the Court to permit contemporaneous transmission testimony 

for the first time one week before the pretrial conference. The defendants proffer two 

reasons why the Court should allow the witnesses not to appear in person.

First, defendants seek to allow Raffaele Apostoliti to testify remotely because

Apostoliti’s son was born prematurely and suffers from several serious health conditions. 

Plaintiff proffers that Apostoliti is necessary for authentication of certain emails. Dkt. No. 

61 at 4. Plaintiff is willing to stipulate with defendants as to the authenticity of the 

documents, in which case, Apostoliti will not be a necessary witness for trial. Id. Plaintiff 

also argues that defendants were aware that the birth of Apostoliti’s child would conflict 

with the trial date, and so defendants could have notified plaintiff and the court earlier. Id. 

Here, although defendants present a compelling reason why Apostiliti cannot travel for 

trial, defendants could have reasonably foreseen these circumstances and there are other 

alternatives to having contemporaneous transmissions. 

Second, defendants seek to allow Guglielmo Fittante, Catherine Guys, and 

Michaela Shulenberg to testify remotely because “Each of these witnesses is a resident of 

Europe. It does not make sense to require them to travel to California to provide brief

testimony.” Dkt. No. 67 at 3. The Court finds that this is not a compelling reason and that 

no good cause has been demonstrated to permit contemporaneous testimony of these 

individuals.

If the parties seek to have these individuals testify at trial, they must appear in 

person. Alternatively, the parties may stipulate to facts or the authentication of documents

Case 5:15-cv-04066-NC Document 69 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 15-cv-04066-NC 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and remove the need for these witnesses to travel. The parties’ further proposal of 

stipulated facts and authenticity of documents is due Friday, May 6 at 12:00 p.m. See 

Court’s order to show cause, dkt. no. 58. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-04066-NC Document 69 Filed 05/05/16 Page 3 of 3