And the Court also did not offer any explanation of how plaintiffs meet the requisite showing of “good cause in compelling circumstances” (which they do not). Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a); see also id. advisory committee’s notes to 1996 amendment (Rule 43(a) is an exception to be deployed “cautiously”).

Id. Fed.R.Civ.P. 43(a) (1996 Advisory Committee Notes) (emphasis added). 4 Seventh Circuit courts are in accord.

Predator International, Inc., at *4; Rule 43. Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of establishing good cause to allow testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmission from a different location pursuant to F.R.C.P. 43(a), and, therefore, its Motion to Permit Telephonic Testimony should be denied. Dated this 23 rd day of February, 2015.

Should the Court not find the issue of Amodeo’s control of Mirabilis to be established as a matter of law, Defendants respectfully request that the Court hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter of Amodeo’s control. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 43; see also Resolution Trust Corp. v. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, 853 F. Supp. 1422, 1423-24 (S.D. Fla. 1994) (after motion for summary judgment was fully briefed and oral argument was heard, district court set Fed. R. Civ. P. 43 hearing). 11 Case 6:09-cv-00271-GAP-DAB Document 63 Filed 11/01/10 Page 11 of 25 in the criminal judgment against Mirabilis, as a criminal monetary penalty for which Mirabilis must pay restitution.

In brief, the declarations do not contain any of the statutorily required language for unsworn declarations i.e., they do not contain the word “perjury” or the phrase “true and correct.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1746; Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 43(c); see Gotlin v. Lederman, 616 F. Supp. 2d 376, 389 n.7 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (declaration that did not state that it is “true and correct” and made under “penalty of perjury” inadmissible); Sterling Fifth Assoc. v. Carpentile Corp., Inc., 2003 WL 22227960, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2003) (holding that where declaration contained the statement it was made under penalty of perjury but failed to state that its contents were “true and correct” that it was “is hard if not impossible” “to rely on the language” it contained). C. The Nainan, Milton and Thomassen Declarations Establish that Those Movants Knowingly Agreed to Testify as ExxonMobil.

CV-08-4220 PJH 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(b) allows the Court to bifurcate issues “for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize,….” FRCP 43(b). Any bifurcation order must be intended to achieve the purposes of the rule.

Co., 857 F.2d 600 (9th Cir. 1988) ............................................................................... 20 Case 8:17-cv-02202-AG-KES Document 178 Filed 03/18/19 Page 4 of 26 Page ID #:12595 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 iv OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 168] Other Authorities Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 43 ............................................................................................. 10 Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56 ............................................................................................. 10 Fed. Rule of Evid. 801(d) ......................................................................................... 10 Local Rule 7-7 .......................................................................................................... 10 Case 8:17-cv-02202-AG-KES Document 178 Filed 03/18/19 Page 5 of 26 Page ID #:12596 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 168] Defendants Jason Huang, Rulong Chen, and Jianping Huang aka James Huang (“Defendants”) oppose Plaintiff CTC Global Corporation’s (“CTC”) Motion for Default Judgment (“Motion”) (Dkt.

Case 1:16-cv-00595-NRN Document 212 Filed 09/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5 2 1. F.R.C.P. 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.” 2.

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA NORFOLK DIVISION IN RE CELEBREX (CELECOXIB) ANTITRUST LITIGATION This document relates to: Direct Purchaser Actions Lead Case No. 2:14-cv-00361 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE 11: DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PERMIT LIVE TESTIMONY BY CONTEMPORANEOUS TRANSMISSION Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) and 45, the direct purchasers move for an order permitting them to present the custodian-of-record witnesses identified on their proposed witness list of September 15, 2017 by contemporaneous video transmission at trial. The parties have engaged in negotiations to prepare trial stipulations.

For good cause shown in compelling circumstances, the Court may permit presentation of testimony in open court by contemporaneous 6 transmission from a different location. Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a). 4. Depositions