Freeman v. Jacobson

Background

At a July 6, 2022 final pretrial conference, Plaintiff Aaron Freeman asked to have witness Helana Lynn testify remotely by videoconference. Defendants objected. Freeman identified Lynn as a material witness because she had attempted to mediate a custody dispute involving Saylor, the dog. He argued that her testimony would support his claim that Defendants’ conversion of Saylor was malicious and willful.

Freeman said Lynn could not travel to New York because she had recently been diagnosed with a condition that worsened when she traveled and because she had two young children.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) generally requires trial testimony to be taken in open court. It permits testimony from another location by live transmission when there is good cause, compelling circumstances, and appropriate safeguards. The court explained that serious health conditions interfering with travel may meet that standard, but inconvenience alone does not. The court also noted the importance traditionally given to assessing a witness’s demeanor face-to-face.

Court’s reasoning

The court found that Freeman had not shown good cause and compelling circumstances. He provided no sworn affidavits or medical documentation establishing that Lynn’s condition prevented or substantially restricted travel. The court also stated that caretaking responsibilities do not constitute a compelling circumstance for remote testimony.

The court further held that, even if Lynn’s unwillingness to travel had been adequately supported, Freeman had not shown that her testimony was likely to be significant enough to justify the substantial burden remote testimony would impose on the court and trial procedures.

Disposition

Judge Sarah Netburn denied Plaintiff’s motion to allow Helana Lynn to testify remotely by videoconference. The opinion does not state any additional disposition of the case or claims.