United States of America v. Li

Filing 149

ORDER denying 125 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; denying 128 Motion to Compel. Mr. Gang Chen's deposition shall be completed by video conference. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/19/2013.(DGC, nvo)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

United States of America,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-12-00482-PHX-DGC

Grace Xunmei Li,
Defendant.

13
14
15

Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to modify a discovery deadline in order to

16

disclose an expert witness. Doc. 125. The motion is fully briefed and neither party

17

has requested oral argument. Docs. 136, 141. The motion will be denied.

18

Defendant has filed a motion to resume the deposition of Gang Chen. Doc. 128.

19

The motion is fully briefed. Docs. 132, 142. Plaintiff’s request for oral argument is

20

denied because the issues have been fully briefed and oral argument will not aid the

21

Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Partridge v. Reich, 11 F.3d 920, 926

22

(9th Cir. 1998). For the reasons set forth herein, the Court will deny the motion.

23

I.

Motion to modify discovery deadline to add expert.

24

Plaintiff seeks leave of Court to modify the discovery deadlines to add an expert

25

document examiner. Doc. 125. Case management schedules “may be modified only

26

for good cause[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

27

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992); Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410

28

F.3d 1052, 1062 (9th Cir. 2005).

“Good cause” exists when a deadline “cannot

1

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Fed. R.

2

Civ. P. 16 cmt. (b). Thus, “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the

3

diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

4

Plaintiff asserts the expert is needed to testify that the handwriting on the N-400

5

application of Gang Chen – the individual Plaintiff alleges to be Defendant’s bigamous

6

husband – is Defendant’s handwriting.

7

handwriting is hers, and has offered to serve an amended response to the requests for

8

admission clarifying such. Doc. 136. The discovery deadline will not be extended to

9

accommodate an unnecessary expert witness. The motion is denied without prejudice

10

and Defendant is hereby ordered to amend her response to Plaintiff’s requests for

11

admission to clarify her position on this matter.

12

II.

Id. at 2.

Defendant has conceded the

Motion to resume deposition of Gang Chen.

13

A.

Background.

14

Defendant has filed a motion to resume the deposition of Gang Chen under fair

15

and equitable circumstances.

Doc. 128.

Defendant argues that the government

16

deported Chen to China before she had a full and fair opportunity to depose him, and

17

that Chen’s testimony is vital to corroborating her defense that she never intended to be

18

legally married to him and Anthony Bambrough at the same time.

19

Gang Chen was placed in removal proceedings on July 17, 2010. Doc. 132 at

20

3. He was arrested and placed in custody on May 19, 2012, and was ordered removed

21

on January 7, 2013. Id. Chen was declared a flight risk by the immigration court, and

22

the Board of Immigration Appeals denied his appeal of his order of removal. Id. Chen

23

sought review in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and simultaneously moved for a

24

stay of removal pending the resolution of his petition. Id. at 4.

25

Meanwhile, Chen was deposed in this case on September 3 and 13, 2013, at the

26

West County Detention Facility in Richmond, California. Id. Defendant asserts that

27

Plaintiff’s attorneys questioned Chen for the entirety of both sessions.

28

concluding the session on September 13, counsel for both parties agreed to schedule

-2-

Upon

1

another session to complete Chen’s deposition on October 4, 2013. On September 5,

2

2013, however, Chen had withdrawn his motion for a stay from the Ninth Circuit, and

3

on September 27, 2013, Chen was removed to China. Id. at 7.

4

Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff, as “The Government,” created an

5

inequitable situation by deporting Chen. She asks the Court for one of three alternative

6

forms of relief so that she may finish Chen’s deposition in person: (1) order Plaintiff to

7

grant Chen temporary admission into the United States under 8 U.S.C.

8

§ 1182(d)(5)(A); (2) order Plaintiff to fly Chen to a U.S. airport and allow the

9

deposition to continue in an international zone at the airport; or (3) order Plaintiff to

10

pay to send defense counsel to China to depose Chen. Doc. 128 at 5-6. The Court has

11

already rejected the last alternative in a text entry order on October 18, 2013. The

12

Court now rejects the other requested forms of relief.

13

B.

14

Defendant argues that the government has the power to parole Chen back into

15

the United States for a limited time to complete his deposition under 8 U.S.C.

16

§ 1182(d)(5)(A). This section provides:

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Temporary parole into the United States.

The Attorney General may. . . in his discretion parole into the United
States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a
case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public
benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such
parole of such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and
when the purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Attorney
General, have been served the alien shall forthwith return or be returned
to the custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall
continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other
applicant for admission to the United States.

24
25
26
27
28

The Court has no authority to review denials of discretionary immigration relief,
including “any other decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of
Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in
the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security.” 8

-3-

1

U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). The Attorney General has not exercised his discretion to

2

grant relief to Chen, and Defendant cites no authority under which this Court could

3

compel the Attorney General to exercise such discretion.1
Defendant’s inclusion of the declaration of Jodilyn Marie Goodwin, describing

4
5

her client’s parole for the purposes of being deposed, is not persuasive.

A brief

6

description of a situation in which the Attorney General’s discretion was, in fact,

7

exercised to grant parole is not legal authority for this Court to order the Attorney

8

General to do so here.

9

Defendant does not provide any other authority under which this Court could

10

compel the government to produce a non-employee, third-party witness, currently

11

residing outside of its subpoena power. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c). This extraordinary

12

form of relief is not justified and this request is denied.

13

C.

Deposition in the international zone of a U.S. airport.

14

Defendant cites the same statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A), to support its

15

request that the Court order Chen’s deposition to be taken in the international area of a

16

U.S. airport. For reasons stated above, the Court concludes that the statute does not

17

authorize this relief, and Defendant has identified no other authority for ordering the

18

Attorney General to transport Chen to the international area of a U.S. airport for the

19

purpose of taking his deposition.

20

D.

Remote video deposition.

21

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize remote video depositions. Fed.

22

R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4) (“the parties may stipulate – or the court may on motion order –

23

that a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote means”). The party seeking to

24

take a deposition by video-teleconferencing must establish a legitimate reason for its

25
26
27
28

1

Even if the Court had power to compel the Attorney General to act, it would not do so.
The statutory provision that provides discretion to temporarily parole parties into the
United States allows such action only “for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant
public benefit.” Defendants have made no showing that the deposition of a third party
witness in this case is required for urgent humanitarian reasons or that it would provide
significant public benefit.
-4-

1

motion. Brown v. Carr, 253 F.R.D. 410, 412 (S.D. Tex. 2008); Brown v. Carr, 236

2

F.R.D. 311, 312 (S.D. Tex. 2006); Cressler v. Neuenschwander, 170 F.R.D. 20, 21

3

(D. Kan. 1996)). The Court has already found that Chen’s removal to China makes

4

video-teleconferencing the most reasonable, cost-efficient manner in which to finish his

5

deposition. Doc. 117. Defendant – the party opposing the video deposition – now

6

bears the burden of showing prejudice. Carr, 253 F.R.D. at 412.

7

Defendant’s arguments that she would be prejudiced by finishing the deposition

8

by remote video are not persuasive. Defendant cites concerns about the accuracy of

9

Chen’s testimony, the nuances of translating his testimony, the ability to hear clearly,

10

Chen’s access to his American counsel, and Li’s access to Chen, his counsel, and the

11

interpreter. Doc. 142 at 1. Concerns about accuracy due to language or translation

12

barriers would exist in any deposition of Chen, and the Court is not persuaded that

13

modern video-conference technology will present audio problems. Nor can the Court

14

credit concerns about access to counsel when a video conference has not been

15

attempted.

16

IT IS ORDERED:

17

1.

denied.

18
19

The motion for leave to modify a discovery deadline (Doc. 125) is

2.

The motion to resume the deposition of Gang Chen under fair and
equitable circumstances (Doc. 128) is denied.

20
21

3.

Mr. Chen’s deposition shall be completed by video conference.

22

Dated this 19th day of December, 2013.

23
24
25
26
27
28

-5-