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.