Hatchett v. Ortiz

Filing 131

ORDER granting 122 Plaintiff Leave to Present Testimony by Video Transmission. Plaintiff's Motion To Permit Telephonic Testimony [# 122 ] is GRANTED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 7/25/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 11-cv-01659-REB-BNB
MICHAEL HATCHETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPUTY ORTIZ,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO PRESENT TESTIMONY
BY VIDEO TRANSMISSION
Blackburn, J.
The matter is before me on Plaintiff’s Motion To Permit Telephonic
Testimony [#122]1 filed July 15, 2013. Plaintiff seeks to present the testimony of two
Colorado Department of Corrections inmates, Michael Dorrance and Monte Thomas,
by telephone or video transmission. See Motion at 1 and 4. The defendant objects to
testimony presented by telephone, but not by video transmission. See Def. Trial Brief at
10, ¶ 1.f.).
Michael Dorrance (DOC 137000) is currently incarcerated by the Colorado
Department of Corrections at the Limon Correctional Facility in Limon, Colorado. Monte
Thomas is currently incarcerated by the Colorado Department of Corrections at the
Delta Correctional Center, Delta, Colorado. Trial by jury is set to commence July 29,

1

“[#122]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

2013.
The motion implicates Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a), which provides in relevant part:
In Open Court. At trial, the witnesses' testimony must be taken in open
court unless a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, these rules,
or other rules adopted by the Supreme Court provide otherwise. For good
cause in compelling circumstances and with appropriate safeguards, the
court may permit testimony in open court by contemporaneous
transmission from a different location.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a). The corresponding Advisory Committee Notes provide: “Good
cause and compelling circumstances may be established with relative ease if all parties
agree that testimony should be presented by transmission.” Id., Advisory Committee
Notes (1996 Amendment).
On the relevant record considered as a whole, I conclude ultimately that the
testimony of Colorado Department of Corrections inmates, Michael Dorrance and Monte
Thomas, may be presented by video transmission. Thus, the motion should be granted,
but only insofar as consistent with the foregoing findings and the following orders.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That Plaintiff’s Motion To Permit Telephonic Testimony [#122] filed July
15, 2013, is GRANTED, insofar as it is consistent with the following orders;
2. That Michael Dorrance (DOC 137000), who is currently incarcerated by the
Colorado Department of Corrections at the Limon Correctional Facility in Limon,
Colorado, MAY TESTIFY by video transmission during the jury trial in this case set to
commence July 29, 2013;
3. That Mr. Dorrance SHALL BE available to testify by video transmission on
July 30, 2013, commencing at 9:00 a.m. (MDT), through his case manager, Roberta
2

Walters;
4. That Monte Thomas, who is currently incarcerated by the Colorado
Department of Corrections at the Delta Correctional Center, Delta, Colorado, MAY
TESTIFY by video transmission during the jury trial in this case set to commence July
29, 2013;
5. That Mr. Thomas SHALL BE available to testify by video transmission on
July 30, 2013, commencing at 9:00 a.m. (MDT), through his case manager, Kelly
Rocha;
6. That counsel for plaintiff SHALL MAKE all arrangements necessary to
present the testimony of Mr. Dorrance and Mr. Thomas by video transmission; and
7. That counsel for plaintiff SHALL SERVE this order on the wardens of the
correctional institutions where Mr. Dorrance and Mr. Thomas are incarcerated.
Dated July 25, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3