Heldt v. Tata Consultancy Services, LTD

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01696

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 5: Plaintiffs' Motion to Permit Contemporaneous Testimony from a Remote Location Under Rule 43(A); Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE plaintiffs' motion to permit remote contemporaneous testimony {{497}}. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 10/17/18.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 CHRISTOPHER SLAIGHT, ET AL., CASE NO. 15-cv-01696-YGR 7 Plaintiffs, PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 5 RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO PERMIT CONTEMPORANEOUS 8 vs. TESTIMONY FROM A REMOTE LOCATION UNDER RULE 43(A) 9 TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD, Re: Dkt. No. 497 10 Defendant. 11 12 The Court has reviewed plaintiffs' motion to permit contemporaneous testimony from a Northern District of California United States District Court 13 remote location pursuant to Rule 43(a). (Dkt. No. 497 ("Motion").) As noted during the October 14 12, 2018 pretrial conference, this motion now only relates to Amit Jindal.1 Jindal is TCS's Head 15 of Immigration and works in TCS's Rockville, Maryland office. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiffs would like to 16 question Jindal regarding "the number of expats that travel each year to the U.S. to staff positions 17 and associated filings/plans needed to enable expats to work in the U.S." as well as audits by 18 PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ernst & Young. (Id.) 19 Pursuant to Rule 43(a), "[f]or good cause in compelling circumstances and with 20 appropriate safeguards, the court may permit testimony in open court by contemporaneous 21 transmission from a different location." Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a). Five elements factor into whether 22 good cause exists to permit live videoconference testimony: "(1) the control exerted over the 23 24 1 Plaintiffs' motion seeks to compel testimony via teleconference of six Tata Consultancy 25 Services, Ltd. ("TCS") employees – Surya Kant, Narasimhan Srinivasan, Balaji Ganapathy, Ashok Seetharaman, Vignesh Rangasamy, and Amit Jindal. (Motion.) However, as noted during 26 the parties' pretrial conference on October 12, 2018, only Amit Jindal remains a subject of the motion. TCS is planning to call Kant, Srinivasan, Ganapathy, and Seetharaman, as well as 27 Rangasamy's supervisor, Geeta Gwalani, to testify at trial. Thus, and as also noted during the conference, plaintiffs have agreed to withdraw the motion as it applies to Kant, Srinivasan, 28 Ganapathy, Seetharaman, and Rangasamy. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' Rule 43(a) motion remains only as to Jindal. 1 witness by the defendant; (2) the complex, multiparty, multi-state nature of the litigation; (3) the 2 apparent tactical advantage, as opposed to any real inconvenience to the witness, that the 3 defendant is seeking by not producing the witness voluntarily; (4) the lack of any true prejudice to 4 the defendant; and (5) the flexibility needed to manage a complex multi-district litigation." 9A 5 Wright & Miler, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2414; see also Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072, 6 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2016). 7 Although TCS employs, and therefore exerts some control, over Jindal and this suit is a 8 multiparty, multi-state, class action, in light of the availability of witnesses Kant, Srinivasan, and 9 Ganapathy, whom plaintiffs intend to ask about the PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ernst & Young 10 audit reports (Motion at 5-7), and the Court's order granting in part defendant's motion to exclude 11 at trial evidence of visa fraud, the Court finds that plaintiffs have not shown good cause in 12 compelling circumstances to compel remote testimony of Jindal. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Northern District of California United States District Court 13 WITHOUT PREJUDICE plaintiffs' motion to permit remote contemporaneous testimony. 14 This Order terminates Docket Number 497. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: October 17, 2018 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2