Alessi Equipment, Inc. v. American Piledriving Equipment, Inc.
- Judith McCarthy
- 7:18-cv-03976
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Alessi Equipment v. American Piledriving, Judge McCarthy set procedures for presenting a distant witness’s testimony at trial.
Pat Hughes, Alessi Equipment, Inc., and American Piledriving Equipment, Inc.; the order governed how Hughes’s testimony could be presented at trial.
What happened
In Alessi Equipment, Inc. v. American Piledriving Equipment, Inc., the court considered whether Pat Hughes should testify at trial. The court found that his knowledge of the parties’ compensation agreement was relevant to damages.
Because Hughes resides in Washington, more than 100 miles from the court, the court said it could not require him to testify in person or by video. If Hughes agrees, the parties may record his testimony before trial, including direct and cross-examination, for the jury to watch. If he does not agree, Alessi may use portions of his deposition as trial testimony under the applicable rules.
Judge Judith C. McCarthy ordered the parties to meet and jointly tell the court which option they prefer by 2:00 p.m. on June 3, 2022, along with additional scheduling information if they choose recorded testimony.
The detailed version
- Alessi Equipment, Inc. v. American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. · No. 7:18-cv-03976
- Judith McCarthy
- June 2, 2022
Issue
The court reviewed the parties’ positions about the relevance of Pat Hughes’s testimony and whether he could be required to appear at trial.
Court’s analysis
The court determined that Hughes had unique knowledge about the compensation terms agreed to by the parties. It therefore found his testimony highly relevant to damages under Federal Rule of Evidence 401.
Hughes resides in Washington, more than 100 miles outside the Southern District of New York. The court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 did not give it authority to compel him to testify in person or by video. The court therefore would not require him to travel to the district or testify by video if he did not wish to do so.
The court nevertheless explained that Hughes could testify by a prerecorded video deposition if he consented, subject to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 32 and 43. Because the parties raised the dispute shortly before trial, the court said it could not accommodate live remote testimony.
Order
If Hughes consents to testify, the parties must record his direct and cross-examination before trial and play the recording for the jury. Counsel must make contemporaneous objections, and Hughes must answer all questions. Three business days before the testimony is shown to the jury, the parties must submit a transcript to the court. The court will rule on objections, and the parties must remove from the recording any questions or answers covered by sustained objections.
If Hughes does not consent, Alessi may use his deposition as trial testimony under Rule 32. The parties must exchange the deposition portions they intend to introduce before trial and bring complete transcript copies to trial.
The court directed the parties to meet and confer and jointly advise it of their preferred option by 2:00 p.m. on June 3, 2022. If they selected recorded testimony, they also had to provide the planned transcript-submission date and the expected date for offering the recording into evidence. Judge Judith C. McCarthy did not require Hughes to appear in person or by video.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.