Rinaldi v. SCA La Goutte, D'Or

Background

The defendants moved for an order allowing Isabelle Grzeszezak to testify at trial remotely from France using videoconferencing technology. Mario Rinaldi opposed the request. The court had initially denied the request at a January 21, 2022 pretrial conference but allowed the defendants to file a new motion supported by additional evidence. The court also asked the defendants to address whether French law permitted the proposed testimony and what requirements might apply.

The defendants filed a renewed motion, supported by materials including a declaration from Grzeszezak. The parties also submitted sealed materials. The court noted that the parties disputed whether Rinaldi had previously agreed to remote testimony, but the court did not resolve that factual dispute.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) generally requires witnesses to testify in open court. It permits a court, for good cause and in compelling circumstances, to allow testimony from another location by live, simultaneous transmission if appropriate safeguards are used. The court explained that inconvenience alone is not enough, and that the ability to observe a witness face-to-face is important. The court also recognized that good cause may exist when a witness cannot attend trial in person but can testify from another location.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the defendants had shown good cause and compelling circumstances for Grzeszezak’s remote testimony. It rejected Rinaldi’s conclusory arguments that the defendants’ reasons were “contrived.” The court stated that the defendants had demonstrated good cause regardless of Grzeszezak’s personal preference about appearing in person.

The court also found that the proposed testimony would include appropriate safeguards. It rejected the argument that video testimony would make cross-examination nearly impossible without advance notice of every document to be used. The court explained that modern videoconferencing technology permits exhibits to be presented at the same time. It also noted that the parties had been directed to discuss trial exhibits and could discuss additional safeguards, including safeguards concerning interpreters.

Finally, the court concluded that the parties had identified no French law that would prevent the remote testimony. The court agreed with the defendants that the Hague Evidence Convention did not apply and that an earlier ruling in the case made the French “blocking statute” irrelevant under the circumstances. The court also noted that Rinaldi identified no other French law prohibiting the remote testimony.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the defendants’ motion for an order allowing Isabelle Grzeszezak to testify at trial remotely from France by videoconferencing technology. The clerk was directed to terminate the docket entries for the motion.