Cleveland v. Curry et al
Filing
185
Order by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas denying 172 Motion to Quash.(njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2013)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
EUREKA DIVISION
7
IVAN VERNORD CLEVELAND, et al.,
8
Case No. 07-cv-02809-NJV
Plaintiffs,
9
v.
10
BEN CURRY, et al.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO QUASH WRITS OF
HABEAS CORPUS AD
TESTIFICANDUM
Re: Dkt. No. 172
12
13
The court appreciates that the costs involved in transporting the five plaintiffs to and from
14
15
trial, and guarding them for the duration of the proceedings, are significant. The court has
16
conducted proceedings involving prisoners via video-conference. The court is concerned that
17
video-conferencing the five plaintiffs1 from four remote locations with the court in San Francisco
18
would entail enormous coordination with each institution, and entail numerous logistical and
19
technological difficulties that could lengthen the proceedings unnecessarily. The court also agrees
20
with plaintiffs that jurors could perceive their testimony differently if they are only allowed to
21
present it remotely. See Doc. No. 178. Accordingly, the court denies the motion to quash.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
Dated: October 24, 2013
______________________________________
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge
24
25
26
27
1
28
Defendants note that one of the plaintiffs would need to be transported to a correctional facility
that is capable of using the video-conferencing equipment at trial.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?