Cleveland v. Curry et al
Order by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas denying 172 Motion to Quash.(njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2013)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IVAN VERNORD CLEVELAND, et al.,
Case No. 07-cv-02809-NJV
BEN CURRY, et al.,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO QUASH WRITS OF
HABEAS CORPUS AD
Re: Dkt. No. 172
The court appreciates that the costs involved in transporting the five plaintiffs to and from
trial, and guarding them for the duration of the proceedings, are significant. The court has
conducted proceedings involving prisoners via video-conference. The court is concerned that
video-conferencing the five plaintiffs1 from four remote locations with the court in San Francisco
would entail enormous coordination with each institution, and entail numerous logistical and
technological difficulties that could lengthen the proceedings unnecessarily. The court also agrees
with plaintiffs that jurors could perceive their testimony differently if they are only allowed to
present it remotely. See Doc. No. 178. Accordingly, the court denies the motion to quash.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 24, 2013
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge
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?