{"id":423,"date":"2026-01-07T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-07T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=423"},"modified":"2026-01-07T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-07T12:00:00","slug":"international-swimming-league-world-aquatics-rule-43-remote-testimony-causation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=423","title":{"rendered":"International Swimming League v. World Aquatics \u2014 N.D. Cal. denies remote-testimony request and refuses to bar lawsuit-as-superseding-cause evidence at trial"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
International Swimming League, LTD v. World Aquatics<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-07<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:18-cv-07394<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a); remote video testimony; foreseeability; antitrust trial; superseding cause; In re Kirkland<\/em>; visa-denied witness<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

The International Swimming League, LTD (ISL) sued World Aquatics, the international governing body for competitive swimming, in the Northern District of California in 2018, alleging anticompetitive conduct that damaged ISL\u2019s ability to operate its professional swimming league. The case has been pending for years and is on the eve of jury trial. ISL\u2019s founder, primary funder, and key witness Konstantin Grigorishin had his U.S. visa revoked in 2016 \u2014 two years before ISL filed suit \u2014 and had been denied a fresh visa in 2019.<\/p>\n

Months before trial, ISL asked the court to allow Grigorishin to testify remotely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a). At the November 2025 pretrial conference, the court signaled it would consider remote testimony if Grigorishin could show he had pursued and been denied a visa. Grigorishin applied for a B-1\/B-2 visa on December 18, 2025, was interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Switzerland on December 30, 2025, and was told the application required \u201cadministrative processing\u201d and submission of a Form DS-5535 with additional information. As of January 6, 2026 \u2014 days before trial \u2014 he had not received a visa, his immigration counsel said the embassy was unlikely to issue a final determination for months or years, and a request for CBP parole was pending.<\/p>\n

ISL also asked the court to bar World Aquatics from arguing that the lawsuit itself caused or contributed to ISL\u2019s damages by chilling sponsorship interest.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied both requests.<\/p>\n

On Rule 43(a), the court found ISL had not shown \u201cgood cause in compelling circumstances\u201d to permit remote testimony, citing the Ninth Circuit\u2019s 2023 decision in In re Kirkland<\/em> and the rule\u2019s 1996 advisory committee note. The decisive point was foreseeability: ISL chose to file in the United States in 2018, when its founder\u2019s visa had already been revoked for two years, and Grigorishin\u2019s 2019 visa application had already been denied. ISL therefore reasonably should have foreseen the circumstances now invoked to justify remote testimony, which under Kirkland<\/em> creates \u201cspecial difficulty in showing good cause and the compelling nature of the circumstances.\u201d The court contrasted out-of-circuit cases like Virtual Architecture v. Rick<\/em> and In re Rand International<\/em>, where the international-travel difficulties were less foreseeable. The fact that the deposition had been conducted remotely also did not change the analysis at trial.<\/p>\n

On the in limine request to preclude lawsuit-as-superseding-cause evidence, the court denied the motion. ISL had not explained why the court could prevent the jury from considering evidence relevant to causation of damages. Sponsors\u2019 reactions to the lawsuit are facts that may bear on whether World Aquatics\u2019 alleged conduct was the proximate cause of ISL\u2019s damages, and the appropriate response is jury argument and instructions, not exclusion. The court left the door open to refining the issue with focused objections at trial.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n