Opinion ID: 67089
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Valadez’s and Martinez’s argument

Text: Both Appellants Valadez and Martinez argue that the district court abused its discretion by refusing their requests to depose two witnesses in Mexico. According to Appellants, these individuals would have testified that they worked with Valadez in reselling cars that he brought from the United States to Mexico. We review the district court’s denial of a motion to conduct a deposition for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ramos, 45 F.3d 1519, 1522 (11th Cir. 1995). Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15, a district court may grant a motion to take a deposition “because of exceptional circumstances and in the interest of justice.” F ED. R. C RIM. P. 15(a)(1). “[T]hree factors guide the exceptional circumstances analysis: whether (1) the witness is unavailable to testify at trial; (2) injustice will result because testimony material to the movant’s case will be absent; and (3) countervailing factors render taking the deposition unjust to the nonmoving party.” Ramos, 45 F.3d at 1522-23 (citing United States v. Drogoul, 1 F.3d 1546, 1554 (11th Cir. 12 1993)) (emphases omitted). The Government concedes the first prong and glosses over the third prong in a footnote, leaving the second prong at issue. No injustice resulted because the record included uncontroverted evidence that Valadez had a business selling cars in Mexico, the substance of the very same testimony that Valadez and Martinez sought to introduce by way of the foreign depositions. In other words, the testimony was not absent but merely cumulative. Accordingly, the Appellants did not suffer an injustice when the district court denied their motion and the district court did not abuse its discretion by doing so.