Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01373/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01373-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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

John Roehrs, M.D. and Jean Roehrs, his

wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Minnesota Life Insurance Company, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-03-1373-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter arises on Plaintiffs' Motion To Allow Testimony Of Witnesses

Electronically. (docket # 133) Defendants' Response indicates that Plaintiffs have

apparently withdrawn their request that Dr. Guillermo Huerta testify at all in the ERISA trial

and that Defendants have no objection to Carol Anderson testifying telephonically provided

she has in her immediate possession a complete copy of her deposition and copies of all

exhibits offered by both sides.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) provides that "for good cause shown in

compelling circumstances and upon appropriate safeguards, [a court may] permit

presentation of testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmission from another

location." Rule 43(a), FED.R.CIV.P.; Dagen v. CFC Group Holdings Ltd., 2003 WL

22533425 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). The advisory committee's note cautions that such permission

should not be granted lightly. Id. 

Case 2:03-cv-01373-LOA Document 137 Filed 12/06/05 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

- 2 -

While the Court recognizes the importance of presenting live testimony to test

credibility, it is appropriate in this case to permit this witness to appear and testify

telephonically. The witness lives in or near Omaha, Nebraska, is not a party to this lawsuit,

has previously been deposed and cross examined by counsel and the trial tomorrow is to the

Court, who finds it less compelling to have a witness physically present to judge a witness'

credibility than a jury might. Considering Defendants have no objection to this witness

testifying telephonically and appropriate safeguards can be implemented to ensure fairness

to all parties for a telephonic appearance, the Court will allow this witness to appear and

testify telephonically in the ERISA trial.

Good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion To Allow Testimony Of Witnesses

Electronically, (dkt # 133), is GRANTED. Witness Carol Anderson may conditionally

testify telephonically in the trial beginning tomorrow provided the following conditions are

met:

1. Plaintiffs' counsel shall physically provide to the witness a complete copy of

the witness' deposition, copies of all her deposition exhibits, and legible copies of all possible

exhibits identified by both parties in the Joint Pretrial Order (dkt #136), filed on December

5, 2005,

2. The witness shall have an operable fax machine readily available to her when

she testifies so that unexpected documents may be faxed to her for contemporaneous

questioning about such documents, and

3. Plaintiffs' counsel shall have the witness' telephone and fax number readily

available for the Court to call when she is to testify in this matter.

The Court's staff shall immediately fax a copy of this Order to all counsel of

record.

DATED this 6th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:03-cv-01373-LOA Document 137 Filed 12/06/05 Page 2 of 2