United States v. Sanford, Ltd.
860 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2012Background
- A superseding indictment charging Sanford Ltd. and two individuals with oil discharge-related offenses was returned January 5, 2012 following a Coast Guard inspection of the F/V San Nikunau.
- Defendants moved for pre-trial depositions under Rule 15(a)(1) of five unavailable witnesses, three crewmembers and two former chief engineers, with an expedited consideration due to ship departures from New Zealand.
- The witnesses are foreign nationals residing abroad, beyond the court's subpoena power, and thus potentially unavailable at trial.
- Government opposed depositions, arguing failure to show unavailability or material/exculpatory testimony; court partially granted for three crewmembers and denied for two former chief engineers.
- For the three crewmembers, the court found unavailability and that their testimony could be material and exculpatory, subject to conditions (timing, location, waivers, security, and safeguards).
- The court denied depositions of Braceras and Scott, the two former chief engineers, due to lack of declarations and failure to show their testimony would be material or exculpatory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the three crewmembers unavailable and their testimony material? | Gov't contends witnesses may not be unavailable or exculpatory. | Sanford asserts unavailability and potential exculpatory material. | Yes, three crewmembers unavailable; testimony material and exculpatory. |
| Should the court permit depositions of the three crewmembers under Rule 15 with conditions? | Depositions not appropriate if not indispensable. | Exceptional circumstances justify depositions to preserve testimony. | Granted with conditions (location, timing, cross-examination rights, waivers, safeguards). |
| Are the two former chief engineers unavailable and their testimony material? | Potential exculpatory testimony may exist; travel and evidence unclear. | May provide relevant testimony contradicting other witnesses. | Denied; insufficient foundation and no showing of material/exculpatory testimony. |
| Do travel expenses or agreements to secure appearance affect unavailability? | Travel expense offers do not negate unavailability; however, three crewmembers shown unavailable with potential material testimony. | ||
| What procedural safeguards are required for the three depositions? | Impose location, timing, Fifth Amendment waiver declarations, passport control, and attendance safeguards; joint reporting for defendant appearances. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Straker, 567 F. Supp. 2d 174 (D.D.C. 2008) (rule 15 requires exceptional circumstances for pretrial depositions)
- United States v. Ismaili, 828 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1987) (depositions are inferior; focus on exceptional circumstances)
- United States v. Warren, 713 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010) (live testimony preferred; depositions allowed only in exceptional situations)
- United States v. Kelley, 36 F.3d 1118 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (materiality and availability considerations for depositions)
- Smith v. Cain, 132 S. Ct. 627 (2012) (materiality standard: reasonable probability of affecting outcome (Brady context))
- United States v. Hajbeh, 284 F. Supp. 2d 380 (E.D. Va. 2003) (materiality and exculpatory test in Rule 15 context)
- United States v. Jefferson, 594 F. Supp. 2d 655 (E.D. Va. 2009) (courts may grant foreign depositions despite concerns of perjury; credibility for jury)