MARCEL LIVAUDAIS, JR. United States District Judge.
By order entered on April 27, 2001 (Rec. Doc. No. 431), the Court ruled on the motion of the R.L. Baron interests for leave to reopen discovery for the limited purposes of completing the discovery outlined in the Letter Rogatory issued to the High Court at Calcutta. The order was quite specific in the limited nature of the order granting the motion, specifying the witnesses who could be deposed, the general areas on which the deponents could be questioned, who was to share the costs, the time period in which the depositions could take place, and the reasons why discovery was being reopened for this very limited purpose. The Court keenly recognizes the rapidly approaching trial date. In an effort to ameliorate the inconvenience and expense to all parties concerned, the Court requested that Waterman attempt to arrange for these witnesses to travel to the United States to be deposed, or alternatively, to be deposed via video-conferencing. The Court expressed its extreme reluctance to order counsel to return to Calcutta for this limited purpose.
Very quickly after receipt of the Court's order, Waterman filed its motion to amend the Court Order of April 26, 2001. In the motion to amend, Waterman suggests that certain points were not clearly spelled out in the order. The first topic of concern was that in relation to depositions previously taken of all out-of-country witnesses, the parties agreed that no attempt would be made by anyone to serve process or subpoenas for trial on any witness or the corporation or company he is associated with. The Court readily agrees that this was not clearly spelled out in the order, and inasmuch as counsel for the Baron interests stated orally at the motion hearing and in writing in its reply memorandum to the instant motion to amend that these parties agree to this condition, the Court will simply amend its previous order to include the requirement that all parties agree that no subpoenas for trial or process will be served on the witnesses specified in the order or on their corporations or affiliated companies.
In all other respects and as to the other relief requested in the motion, Waterman's motion to amend the April 26, 2001 order will be denied. The Court recognizes that it has no subpoena power over the witnesses specified in the April 26, 2001 order, but was seeking a method by which the depositions of these witnesses could be taken with minimal expense and inconvenience to all parties. Particularly in light of the fact that this matter will be tried to the bench, the Court would expect that if the witnesses agree to be deposed in the United States, the depositions would be for all purposes, including perpetuation, so that the witnesses would not have to return in the event there is a trial.
If Waterman is unsuccessful, for whatever reason, in arranging the depositions of the witnesses specified in the April 26, 2001 order in the time frame stated in the order, either in person or by video-conferencing, Waterman is to notify the Court immediately of that fact. The Court will then allow the Baron interests to file whatever is necessary to reconvene the Commission appointed by the High Court of Calcutta so that those depositions listed in the Court's April 26, 2001 order, which were previously included in the Letter Rogatory, can be taken in Calcutta. There are numerous motions pending for decision which cannot be decided until these depositions are taken. In addition, the Court is aware that if counsel is required to return to India to take these limited depositions, the trial date will be in jeopardy, a consequence the Court is attempting to avoid.
Accordingly, for the above and foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion of Waterman to amend the Court Order of April 26, 2001 be and is hereby GRANTED IN PART, in that all parties will be required to agree that if the witnesses travel to this district for depositions, no attempt would be made by anyone to serve process or subpoenas on any of the specified witnesses, or their affiliated corporations or companies, for trial, and DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should the attempt to arrange the depositions, either in person in the United States or by video-conferencing, fail, the Court will allow the depositions of the witnesses specified in the April 26, 2001 order be taken in India pursuant to the Letter Rogatory.