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)

Download PDF
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?