Opinion ID: 177996
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Designation of Mark Gustafson as defendants' representative

Text: Bahrani contends the district court erred in allowing Mark Gustafson to appear as defendants' representative and remain present during the testimony of other witnesses at both trials, rather than being sequestered. We review for abuse of discretion a district court's sequestration decisions. See United States v. Samuels, 493 F.3d 1187, 1190-91 (10th Cir. 2007). Federal Rule of Evidence 615 authorizes a district court to order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses.... Fed.R.Evid. 615. The Rule also exempts certain classes of witnesses from sequestration orders. In particular, subsections (2) and (3) of Rule 615 provide that a sequestration order does not apply to an officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney or a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the party's cause.... Id. At the beginning of the jurisdictional trial in this case, Bahrani's counsel asked that the witnesses be sequestered pursuant to Rule 615. The district court granted that motion. Gustafson, who worked at ConAgra's Greeley, Colorado facility continuously throughout its ownership by ConAgra, including during the time frame relevant to the claims asserted by Bahrani, [10] remained in the courtroom, as defendants' representative, throughout the jurisdictional trial. Gustafson testified at the trial and was asked by defense counsel to respond to various witnesses' testimony. On the first day of the hide export certificates trial, prior to the admission of any evidence, Bahrani's counsel objected to Gustafson appearing as a representative for ConAgra and sitting at ConAgra's table throughout the trial. In support, Bahrani's counsel argued that Gustafson was no longer an officer or employee of any of the corporate defendants in the case and had not been since 2002.... Aplt.App. at 1330-31. The district court denied Bahrani's request, stating: I think each side's entitled to have an advisory witness, and the designated witness can be present throughout the trial to assist counsel. It would be grossly unfair, in my view, to require the defendants to have some representative of the company who knew absolutely nothing about the case or wasn't there to try and advise them. Id. at 1331. We conclude the district court acted well within its discretion in allowing Gustafson to remain in the courtroom throughout both trials. As noted by defendants, it appears that the current owner of the Greeley facility, JBS, even though never named as a party defendant, is financially responsible for this litigation and is therefore the real party in interest. Aplee. Supp.App. at 223-24. Consequently, Gustafson effectively qualified as a party representative under the terms of Rule 615(2). Alternatively, Gustafson could reasonably be classified as a person whose presence is shown by [the defendants] to be essential to the presentation of the[ir] ... cause, and thus fell within the exception outlined in Rule 615(3). More specifically, he was, as noted by defendants, the person most knowledgeable about the history and complex factual details of the matters at issue, and with whom counsel needed to confer during trial, the Defendants' designated representative in the Kim case, the employee responsible for coordinating the USDA investigation, and ... the only witness with direct personal knowledge about the scope of that investigationa critical issue in the jurisdictional trial because of the `based-upon' requirement, and in the hide export certificates trial because of the government knowledge instruction. Aplee. Br. at 57.