Ashker v. Alameida et al
ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING ON VIDEO-CONFERENCING AND FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE TRIAL BRIEF. Signed by Judge CLAUDIA WILKEN on 4/14/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2009)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. MICHAEL C. SAYRE, et al., Defendants. / TODD L. ASHKER, Plaintiff, No. C 05-03759 CW ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING ON VIDEOCONFERENCING AND FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE TRIAL BRIEF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
On February 27, 2009, the Court granted Defendants' motion for Plaintiff to appear by video-conference at trial on the condition that Defendants and their counsel also appear by video-conference. The Court also provided the option of the parties consenting to a jury trial by Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas in Eureka, California. On March 5, 2009, Defendants sent a letter indicating that Plaintiff does not agree to a trial before Magistrate Judge Vadas and that they oppose the suggestion that they appear by videoconference because they have a fundamental right to appear personally and defend themselves. However, Defendants did not cite
authority establishing that they have such a fundamental right. In their letter, Defendants also raised several specific questions regarding video-conferencing. On March 23, 2009,
Plaintiff submitted a letter making requests regarding videoconferencing. To begin with, if the parties have a request to make
of the Court, they must file and serve noticed motions pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-2 or 7-11 (Administrative Motion). They may not
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
write letters to the Court. The parties' letters do not address a number of issues regarding video-conferencing, such as who would arrange, find space and pay for the video-conferencing equipment, both at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP) and in this courtroom. Defendants have not
addressed Plaintiff's suggestion of having witnesses who live near PBSP testify from there via video-conference and having witnesses who live in the San Francisco Bay Area testify in the courtroom. Therefore, the parties are ordered to file short briefs addressing these issues. Defendants are to file their brief within They should include
five days from the date of this order.
authority for the proposition that they have a right to appear in person at trial. days thereafter. Plaintiff is to file his responsive brief five If Defendants wish to file a reply, they may do
so two days thereafter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Todd A. Ashker C58191 Pelican Bay State Prison Box 7500 D1-119 Crescent City, CA 95532 Dated: April 14, 2009 ASHKER, Plaintiff, v. ALAMEIDA ET AL et al, Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case Number: CV05-03759 CW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on April 14, 2009, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk
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?