Maslic v. ISM Vuzem d.o.o.

Background

The case was set for trial on Claim 9 of the corrected first amended complaint, described as a human-trafficking claim brought by Sasa Maslic against Tesla, Inc. under federal and state law. Maslic filed an administrative motion asking to allow seventeen witnesses, including himself, to testify at trial electronically from remote locations in Europe. Tesla opposed the motion.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43 generally requires trial testimony to be taken in open court. The court may allow remote testimony for good cause in compelling circumstances and with appropriate safeguards. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, the court explained that remote testimony is an exception and live, in-person testimony is strongly preferred. Unexpected circumstances such as an accident or illness are more persuasive reasons for remote testimony, while circumstances that could reasonably have been anticipated create greater difficulty in showing good cause.

Discussion

Maslic did not submit his own declaration or declarations from the other sixteen witnesses. The only supporting evidence was a declaration from his lawyer, William C. Dresser. The court found the explanations for the witnesses’ inability to travel to California vague and found that Dresser provided no factual basis for his claimed personal knowledge of the witnesses’ circumstances.

For Maslic, Dresser stated that Maslic had hip surgery on June 3, 2024, had heart surgery in July 2023, and was prohibited from traveling by his health-care providers. The court found it unclear how those procedures affected Maslic’s health or how long any effects would last.

For Dr. Milan Jovanovic, Dresser stated that the doctor had an active orthopedic surgery practice and could not travel while continuing to care for patients. The court held that a scheduling conflict alone does not establish good cause, particularly because the trial had been scheduled more than two years earlier and Maslic had not explained why in-person testimony could not have been arranged.

For Stjepan Papes, Dresser stated that Papes’s visa had been revoked at the direction and request of ISM Vuzem, d.o.o., and that Papes was ineligible to travel to the United States. The court noted that only the United States government has authority to revoke visas and that the motion did not state whether Papes had tried to obtain a visa for trial testimony or lacked the means to seek one.

For the remaining witnesses, Dresser stated that some no longer had valid United States travel visas and that each lacked the time or money to travel between Europe and the United States. The court found that the motion provided no details about their efforts to obtain visas, finances, or other circumstances supporting good cause.

Ruling

The court found that Maslic had not shown good cause in compelling circumstances for remote trial testimony. Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the administrative motion without prejudice to refiling with substantial evidence supporting good cause. The court also stated that any declaration filed by someone who does not speak English must include a translation prepared by a certified interpreter. Non-English documentary evidence must likewise be accompanied by a certified English translation; translations prepared by Google Translate or similar applications would not be admitted. The order terminated ECF 149.