Eastern Profit Corporation Limited v. Strategic Vision US LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:18-cv-02185
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Eastern Profit v. Strategic Vision, Judge Liman denied a remote-trial request because Rule 43(a) lacked compelling circumstances.
Eastern Profit Corporation Limited and Strategic Vision US LLC, whose scheduled bench trial was not permitted to proceed remotely and was instead to be held in person after February 12, 2021.
What happened
Eastern Profit Corporation Limited v. Strategic Vision US LLC involved a bench trial scheduled for January 19, 2021. The court had to decide whether the trial should proceed remotely or be delayed until it could occur in person.
Eastern wanted a remote trial because the case was ready and the delay had no definite end date. Strategic opposed a remote trial, arguing that it would be unfairly harmed when examining two Eastern witnesses who needed translators and had acted obstructively during depositions.
Judge Liman denied the request for a remote trial. He found no good cause and compelling circumstances under Rule 43(a), and directed the parties to be ready for an in-person trial on 48 hours’ notice after February 12, 2021.
The detailed version
- Eastern Profit Corporation Limited v. Strategic Vision US LLC · No. 1:18-cv-02185
- Lewis Liman
- Jan. 10, 2021
Background
The court had scheduled a bench trial to begin on January 19, 2021. A Southern District of New York standing order adjourned jury trials through February 12, 2021 and stated that bench trials with witnesses should be conducted remotely when possible. The order also allowed presiding judges to hold an in-person trial if it could not be conducted remotely, was sufficiently urgent, and could not be postponed.
The court held a conference on January 6, 2021, and the parties submitted letters describing their positions. Eastern Profit Corporation Limited argued that the case was ready for trial and that it should not have to wait an indeterminate time for an in-person trial. Strategic Vision US LLC agreed that it was ready but objected to a remote trial. Strategic argued that remote testimony would disproportionately prejudice it because two key Eastern witnesses did not speak English and had behaved obstructively during depositions. Strategic was concerned that coordinating the witnesses, translators, lawyers, and court would make it difficult to obtain the information needed for a complete factual record.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) generally favors testimony in open court where the court is sitting. It permits testimony from another location by live transmission only when there is good cause in compelling circumstances and appropriate safeguards.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that it could not find good cause in compelling circumstances. The case had been filed on March 12, 2018 and had been ready for trial only since October 5, 2020, when the court ruled on summary-judgment motions. The court found that Eastern’s delay was not unusual or so lengthy that it denied Eastern justice.
Eastern had not shown that the monetary damages were so significant that postponing the trial would cause substantial harm. Although Eastern had expressed concern about the continuing effect of its fraud claim, it had not shown that the claim was creating such a burden for Eastern’s principals that the case needed to be tried urgently.
The court considered it significant that a remote trial would not affect both sides equally. It found that Strategic, unlike Eastern, would be prejudiced because the witnesses Strategic planned to call from Eastern needed translators and had been evasive during depositions. The court believed that appropriate safeguards could be designed for a remote trial, but it still found that Rule 43(a)’s requirement of good cause in compelling circumstances was not met.
The court distinguished two decisions cited by the parties. In one, continuing remotely avoided a disadvantage to the plaintiff caused by a lengthy delay after an in-person trial had already begun. In the other, remote testimony did not disproportionately affect either side. The court found that those circumstances were not present here.
Disposition
The court denied the request for a remote trial. It directed the parties to be ready for an in-person trial on 48 hours’ notice on any date after February 12, 2021. The order was emailed to the parties on January 10, 2021 and docketed on January 11, 2021.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.