Watkins Family Trust Dated 1/7/94 v. WB (Brant) Wallace, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 13, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-02785
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WATKINS FAMILY TRUST DATED Case No. 24-cv-02785-JSC 1/7/94, 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION TO HAVE 9 WITNESSES APPEAR BY ZOOM v. 10 Re: Dkt. No. 79 WB (BRANT) WALLACE, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to have two non-party witnesses, Mr. 14 Haddock and Mr. Webb, testify via video at the upcoming bench trial. (Dkt. No. 79.) Plaintiff 15 opposes the motion. After considering the parties’ submissions, the Court concludes oral 16 argument is not required. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) provides “[f]or good cause in compelling 18 circumstances and with appropriate safeguards, the court may permit testimony in open court by 19 contemporaneous transmission from a different location.” Assuming the witnesses will not 20 voluntarily travel to California to testify, Defendants have shown good cause. Both witnesses are 21 non-parties and are beyond the subpoena power of this Court. Given that the Court has limited 22 each side to five hours total for direct and cross-examination, their testimony will necessarily be 23 brief; so, having them spend at least two days travelling from New Hampshire and Texas for brief 24 non-party testimony does not make much sense. Further, in late 2020, the Court conducted a 25 bench trial entirely by Zoom video without a hitch. 26 Plaintiff’s lament that Defendants’ delay in providing notice of their intent to have the 27 witnesses testify via video “robbed Plaintiffs of the ability to depose these purportedly important 1 in person or by video, these witnesses appeared on Defendants’ initial disclosures, and Plaintiff 2 || chose not to depose them. The Court is also unpersuaded by Plaintiff's argument Defendants 3 “knew where their purportedly key witnesses were located from the ‘early stages of this case.’” 4 Ud. at 5.) Plaintiff—not Defendants—chose to file suit in California, so Defendants should not be 5 || faulted for the fact two of their non-party witnesses are outside this Court’s subpoena power. The 6 || case Plaintiff relies upon for this proposition—Air Turbine Technology, Inc. v. Atlas Copco AB, 7 217 F.R.D. 545 (S.D. Fla. 2003)— involved a plaintiff seeking to compel a defendant to produce 8 || by video their employee witnesses who were beyond the court’s subpoena power. It has no 9 || applicability to the circumstances here. Finally, Plaintiff's suggestion Defendants should have 10 || taken these witnesses’ deposition testimony and used that testimony at trial instead is equally 11 unpersuasive. Live video testimony is preferable to playing a deposition video. 12 But, Defendants have not offered evidence these witnesses will not voluntarily travel to 5 13 California to testify. If Defendants wish to have these witnesses testify by video, then on or before 14 || November 25, 2025, they must file a declaration evidencing the witnesses’ unavailability if not 3 15 allowed to testify by video. Assuming the declaration supports their unavailability, the motion 16 || will be granted. IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: November 13, 2025

20 me ACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28