In Re: John Kirkland v. Usbc, Los Angeles, 75f4th1030

John and Poshow Ann Kirkland, former California residents, moved to the U.S. Virgin Islands after prior litigation concerning loans to EPD Investments; Mrs. Kirkland is trustee of the Bright Conscience Trust (BC Trust).
The Chapter 7 trustee sued BC Trust in bankruptcy court; the district court earlier tried claims against Mr. Kirkland (jury verdict for him) and returned the remaining BC Trust claims to the bankruptcy court, noting the bankruptcy court could seek additional testimony if needed.
The bankruptcy court issued trial subpoenas commanding the Kirklands to testify remotely via contemporaneous video transmission from the Virgin Islands; the Kirklands moved to quash, arguing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1)’s 100‑mile geographic limit barred compulsion.
The bankruptcy court denied the motions, relying on Rule 43(a) (good cause and compelling circumstances for remote testimony) and pandemic-era experience with videoconferencing, concluding Rule 43(a) permitted compelling remote testimony despite Rule 45(c).
The Kirklands sought mandamus in the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit concluded the question was novel and important, held Rule 45(c)’s geographic limitations apply to witnesses commanded to testify at trial even if testimony is transmitted remotely, and granted the writ ordering the subpoenas quashed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kirkland)	Defendant's Argument (Trustee / Bankruptcy Ct.)	Held
Whether Rule 45(c)(1)’s 100‑mile subpoena limitation can be avoided when a witness is ordered to testify remotely by videoconference under Rule 43(a).	Rule 45(c)’s geographic limits control subpoena power and cannot be circumvented by Rule 43(a); remote testimony governs mechanics only, not who may be compelled.	Rule 43(a) permits testimony "in open court" to occur remotely for good cause, so the place of compliance may be the witness’s remote location and the 100‑mile limit is therefore satisfied.	The 100‑mile limit in Rule 45(c) governs subpoenas for trial testimony even if testimony is transmitted remotely; Rule 43(a) does not expand subpoena power. Subpoenas quashed.
Whether mandamus relief is appropriate to resolve the dispute.	Mandamus is warranted because the issue is novel, important, collateral (would evade review), and the bankruptcy court clearly erred as a matter of law.	The bankruptcy court’s order was fact-based (good cause / compelling circumstances) and interlocutory remedies existed, so mandamus is not appropriate.	Mandamus granted: Ninth Circuit found clear legal error and that the issue is novel and likely to recur; alternative interlocutory review would have been futile here.

Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (U.S. 2004) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy; standards for issuance)
In re Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 947 F.3d 535 (9th Cir. 2020) (mandamus principles in Ninth Circuit)
In re Mersho, 6 F.4th 891 (9th Cir. 2021) (Bauman factors for mandamus analysis)
Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1964) (mandamus appropriate to resolve a first‑of‑its‑kind procedural question under the Rules)
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 591 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (mandamus to resolve important procedural questions that may evade review)
In re U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 25 F.4th 692 (9th Cir. 2022) (issuing mandamus to quash an invalid deposition subpoena)
Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enters., 498 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1991) (Federal Rules given their plain meaning)
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (text of procedural rules limits judicial invention)
Valenzuela-Gonzalez v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Ariz., 915 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1990) (mandamus for construction of a federal procedural rule in a new context)
Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2016) (recognizing the importance of live, in‑person testimony and limits on remote testimony)