Opinion ID: 753553
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion To Depose Witnesses.

Text: 4 Appellants claim the district court abused its discretion by denying their motion to depose expert witnesses in the People's Republic of China (PRC) pursuant to Fed. R. of Crim. Proc. 15. We reject this claim. In criminal cases, depositions may be taken only in 'exceptional circumstances. ' United States v. Zuno-Arce, 44 F.3d 1420, 1424 (9th Cir.1995). Appellants sought to depose experts that were not percipient witnesses. The district court also found it likely that Appellants could locate experts outside the PRC to testify at trial. Moreover, Appellants failed to show that they were able to depose witnesses in the PRC. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Appellants' motion. 5 In addition, Appellants' motion was denied without prejudice, and the district court indicated that if Appellants could make a stronger showing that they could not locate experts outside the PRC to testify at trial, it might reconsider the motion. Appellants failed to make such a showing or to renew their motion. Appellants' failure to renew the motion further supports the district court's denial. See United States v. Nichols, 534 F.2d 202, 204 (9th Cir.1976). 6