Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:16-cv-07331_de263> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 7 of
7
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-07331_de263 RegisterActionDate "2020-02-14" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-07331_de263 RegisterActionDescriptionText "AMENDED MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold:The motion for order regarding out of state witnesses' appearance at trial 239 is granted in part and denied in part. Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a) provides: "At trial, the witnesses' testimony must be taken in open court unless a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, these rules, or other rules adopted by the Supreme Court provide otherwise. For good cause in compelling circumstances and with appropriate safeguards, the court may permit testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmission from a different location. "Rule 43(a) continues to embody the presumption that witness testimony shall be taken in open court with the witness being physically present in court; but a provision adopted in 1996 adds that '[f]or good cause in compelling circumstances and with appropriate safeguards, the court may permit testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmission from a different location.'" Perotti v. Quinones, 790 F.3d 712, 723 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Rule 43(a); see also Rule 43, advisory committee note (1996 amendment). While videoconferencing is not "the equivalent of in-person appearance," Perotti, 790 F.3d at 724, here, the court finds good cause and compelling circumstances given plaintiffs' personal circumstances and the substantial geographic distances at issue. In addition, the court finds that appropriate safeguards are likely feasible, if the plaintiffs are able to transmit their testimony from the federal courthouses closest to their locations, rather than the private conference facilities plaintiffs had been contemplating. In particular, to ensure the reliability of the videoconferencing, the witnesses must transmit their testimony from the closest federal courthouse, not the plaintiffs' contemplated locations. The court directs the parties to promptly contact the court's systems department (312-435-6045) to arrange testing of the videoconferencing capabilities between this courthouse and the additional federal courthouses where the witnesses would be appearing. The parties must file by 2/28/2020 a joint status report detailing the status of the testing and, if the parties encounter technical difficulties while testing the videoconferencing capabilities, those issues. In addition, regardless of the availability of videoconferencing, the defendant may compel any of these witnesses to appear at trial in person if the defendant pays for reasonable travel expenses. Subject to all these conditions, the court grants plaintiffs' request to allow the ten witnesses specified in the motion 239 to appear at trial by videoconference. The motion to strike 246 is denied. While the court requests that, if a need for affidavits arises in the future, the parties file any affidavits contemporaneously with the opening motion, in this instance, the plaintiffs' motion was responsive to the court's request 237 and the affidavits were appropriately responsive to arguments made in response to the motion. (rao, ) (Entered: 02/14/2020)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-07331_de263 AdministrativeID "262" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-07331_de263 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-07331_de263 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:16-cv-07331_de238 @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-07331_de263 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:16-cv-07331_de240 @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-07331_de263 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:16-cv-07331_de247 @default.