Gonzalez Ambrioso v. Garcia Ledesma, 2:16-cv-02091

Petitioner Vladimir Gonzalez Ambrioso moved for reconsideration of the court’s October 24, 2016 order allowing certain witnesses to testify remotely; the motion concerns witness Delia Maria Iglesias Osoria.
Ambrioso submitted new information that Osoria cannot legally enter the United States because she was deported and is barred from return.
Respondent Carmen Garcia Ledesma opposed reconsideration, arguing Ambrioso’s exhibit was incomplete because the Removal Order lacked the Notice to Appear detailing Osoria’s removal charges.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) permits remote testimony for good cause and in compelling circumstances, but emphasizes the value of in-person demeanor assessment and requires safeguards.
The court found Osoria’s inability to enter the U.S. constitutes a compelling circumstance and granted permission for her to testify remotely, subject to identification, oath, exclusion of other witnesses, local counsel oversight, and other safeguards.
The court ordered Ambrioso to file a complete Removal Order (including the Notice to Appear) by November 22, 2016, in compliance with local rules.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether remote testimony is permitted for Osoria under Rule 43(a)	Remote testimony should be allowed because Osoria cannot legally enter the U.S. after deportation	Remote testimony should be restricted; argued exhibits were incomplete (Removal Order missing Notice to Appear)	Granted: remote testimony allowed due to compelling circumstances (inability to travel), with safeguards and conditions
Whether adequate safeguards exist to ensure reliability of remote testimony	Proposed safeguards (oath, exclusion of others, oversight by Quintana Roo attorney, testimony location at Mexican government office) ensure reliability	Contended evidentiary record incomplete, implying safeguards may be insufficient without full removal documentation	Court found proposed safeguards adequate to prevent coercion/influence and ensure proper identification
Whether petitioner must supplement the record with complete immigration documents	Petitioner filed new info but had not filed the Notice to Appear with Removal Order	Respondent pointed out the omission and asked court to consider the record incomplete	Court ordered Ambrioso to file the complete Removal Order with Notice to Appear by a set deadline

City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court has inherent authority to reconsider interlocutory orders)
Frasure v. U.S., 256 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (D. Nev. 2003) (standards for motions for reconsideration under local practice)