Wallace

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 WATKINS FAMILY TRUST DATED Case No. 24-cv-02785-JSC 1/7/94, 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION TO HAVE WITNESSES APPEAR BY ZOOM v. Re: Dkt. No. 79 WB (BRANT) WALLACE, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to have two non-party witnesses, Mr. Haddock and Mr. Webb, testify via video at the upcoming bench trial. (Dkt. No. 79.) Plaintiff opposes the motion. After considering the parties’ submissions, the Court concludes oral argument is not required. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) provides “[f]or good cause in compelling circumstances and with appropriate safeguards, the court may permit testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmission from a different location.” Assuming the witnesses will not voluntarily travel to California to testify, Defendants have shown good cause. Both witnesses are non-parties and are beyond the subpoena power of…