(PC) Cotton v. Medina et al

1
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESLEY COTTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEDINA, ET AL.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:22-cv-00568-JLT-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION ALLOWING INCARCERATED
WITNESSES TO ATTEND TRIAL
REMOTELY
(ECF No. 195)
Plaintiff Wesley Cotton is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that while he was in a locked caged
enclosure in the B yard of Corcoran State Prison (CSP), toxic gas from cannisters used to break
up a fight in the C yard drifted over and injured him. Defendant Medina failed to protect
Plaintiff from the gas and Plaintiff suffered from exposure. (See generally ECF No. 1).
On November 20, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for attendance of
six incarcerated witnesses at trial. (ECF No. 192). The Court ordered the parties to meet and
confer regarding whether the witnesses should testify live or remotely and to file a statement no
later than November 26, 2025, regarding whether they both wish to proceed by remote
testimony. The Court noted that in the absence of an agreement between the parties, the Court
would require transportation of all witnesses for live testimony. (Id., p. 3).
On November 26, 2025, Defendants filed a statement regarding the testimony of
incarcerated witnesses. (ECF No. 193). Defendants state they held a telephone call with

2
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
Plaintiff on November 26, 2025. (Id.). The parties discussed the testimony of incarcerated
witnesses and Plaintiff’s position is that all incarcerated witnesses other than himself should be
permitted to testify remotely, while Defendant’s position is that all incarcerated witnesses
should testify in person, “to permit effective communication thorough direct and cross-
examination and enable the jury to meaningfully assess each witness’s credibility.” (Id.).
On December 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed his response to the Court’s order, indicating it was
his wish to have the incarcerated witnesses remotely, while he be permitted to testify in person.
(ECF No. 195).
For the reasons set forth below, the Court shall deny Plaintiff’s request to allow
incarcerated witnesses to testify remotely.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) states: “At trial, the witnesses’ testimony must be
taken in open court unless a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, these rules, or other
rules adopted by the Supreme Court provide otherwise. 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a). The
Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 43(a), provides the following guidance regarding when
contemporaneous transmission should be permitted:
Contemporaneous transmission of testimony from a different location is
permitted only on showing good cause in compelling circumstances. The
importance of presenting live testimony in court cannot be forgotten. The very
ceremony of trial and the presence of the factfinder may exert a powerful force
for truthtelling. The opportunity to judge the demeanor of a witness face-to-face
is accorded great value in our tradition. Transmission cannot be justified merely
by showing that it is inconvenient for the witness to attend the trial.
The most persuasive showings of good cause and compelling circumstances are
likely to arise when a witness is unable to attend trial for unexpected reasons,
such as accident or illness, but remains able to testify from a different place. . . .
Good cause and compelling circumstances may be established with relative ease
if all parties agree that testimony should be presented by transmission. The court
is not bound by a stipulation, however, and can insist on live testimony.
Rejection of the parties' agreement will be influenced, among other factors, by
the apparent importance of the testimony in the full context of the trial.

3
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
Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a) 1996 Amend.
With these standards in mind, the Court does not find good cause for the incarcerated
witnesses to provide testimony remotely. Here, the parties have not agreed that the testimony
should be presented by transmission. Instead, Defendants have indicated that they prefer live
testimony “to permit effective communication thorough direct and cross-examination and
enable the jury to meaningfully assess each witness’s credibility.” (ECF No. 193).
Nor does Plaintiff provide good cause in his motion. (ECF No. 195). Plaintiff argues
that remote testimony is justified “in the spirit of economical soundness.” (ECF No. 195, at p.
1). This does not establish good cause and compelling circumstances, especially as neither the
Plaintiff nor witnesses will pay for the cost of their transportation.
Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to allow incarcerated witnesses to testify
remotely. (ECF No. 195).1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 5, 2025 /s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1 The Court shall issue writs for the transportation of the incarcerated witnesses in advance of the trial.