Michael L Ruiz v. Magellan Financial & Insurance Services

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: May 7, 2026
• Docket: 2:23-cv-02090
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Michael L Ruiz, No. CV-23-02090-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Magellan Financial & Insurance Services,

13 Defendant.

14 At the Final Pretrial Conference, Defendant requested that non-party witness David 15 Mortach be permitted to testify remotely via video conference. Plaintiff objected and 16 argued that Mr. Mortach should testify in person. 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) provides that “[a]t trial, the witnesses’ 18 testimony must be taken in open court unless a federal statute, the Federal Rules of 19 Evidence, these rules, or other rules adopted by the Supreme Court provide otherwise. For 20 good cause in compelling circumstances and with appropriate safeguards, the court may 21 permit testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmission from a different 22 location.” The advisory committee notes to Rule 43(a) explain that “good cause” and 23 “compelling circumstances” do not exist merely because “it is inconvenient for the witness 24 to attend trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a), 1996 note. Rather, “[t]he most persuasive showings 25 of good cause and compelling circumstances are likely to arise when a witness is unable to 26 attend trial for unexpected reasons, such as accident or illness, but remains able to testify 27 from a different place.” Id. 28 The only reason proffered by Defendant for its request that Mr. Mortach be 1 || permitted to testify remotely is the inconvenience posed by having to travel to Arizona for 2|| trial. But as noted above, that is not a “compelling circumstance” under Rule 43(a). See || also Star Mountain Plan Tr. v. Titan Mining (US) Corp., 2023 WL 2355916, *6 (D. Ariz. 2023) (“The rule and cases are clear that inconvenience is not sufficient to demonstrate || good cause.”); Meeks v. Parsons, 2010 WL 11671811, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (“The length □□ of time and distance to be traveled by a witness, without more, does not warrant allowing 7\| a party to present witness testimony at trial via video conference.”). See generally | 8 || Gensler, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary, § 43.7 (June 2025 9|| update) (“By itself, travel inconvenience generally does not constitute good cause and compelling circumstances for permitting transmitted testimony. But more particularized |) types of travel hardships can constitute good cause depending on the circumstances. For 12 || example, many courts have found good cause in cases where the United States will not 13 || grant the witness permission to lawfully enter the country.”’). 14 Accordingly, 15 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s request that Mr. Mortach be permitted to testify remotely via video conference is denied. 17 Dated this 7th day of May, 2026. 18

20 f _o—— Dominic W. Lanza 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-