Ziegler v. Salazar et al

Filing 59

ORDER. Signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 10/9/2014. (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA

fILED
aCT 09 20t4

SOUTHERN DIVISION

*****************************************************************************
*
VICTOR R. ZIEGLER, SR.,
*
CIV 12-4042
*

Plainti~
*

*

vs.
*

*
ORDER
KEN SALAZAR, Secretary,
*
Department 0 fInterior;
*
PAT RAGSDALE, Gov. Official; and
*
CARL RENVILLE, Gov. Officia~
*
*
Defendants.
*
*
******************************************************************************
Court staff received a request that the Defendants be allowed to present the testimony of a
witness by video from a remote location, Co lorado. The witness in question is an Administrative Law
Judge who adjudicated on a case of Plaintiff Ziegler.

The proper way to approach such a request is to file a Motion with the Court but in the
interest of time the Court is answering the question. The parties are referred to Rule 43(a) which
provides in part: "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." No such showing has been made and the request at this point is denied. See also

Parkhurst v. Belt, 567 F.3d 995 (8th Cir. 2009); and 9A Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil
§ 2414, (3d ed.).

If the parties stipulated to the video testimony, then testimony could be presented in that
manner. In addition, ifthe parties take a deposition before trial the testimony could be presented in
that manner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

q~

Dated this _ . _

day of October, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

~Ji~
awrence L. Piersol
United States District Judge
ATTEST:

JOSEPH HAAS, CLERK

BY:~~~
DEPUT
t