BALLESTEROS
v.
WALMART STORES EAST, LP
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to allow a witness to testify remotely via Zoom.
The plaintiff requested that his treating physician testify remotely due to the doctor's location and scheduled appointments. The defendant opposed th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Compelling Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant. /
ORDER1
Before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Ballesteros’ Motion for remote testimony (Doc. 69). Ballesteros wants his treating physician to testify remotely at trial next week. In support, Ballesteros argues the doctor works mostly in Palm Beach County and has patient appointments scheduled next week. What’s more, remote testimony by Zoom will not prejudice either party, says Ballesteros, because it is functional and reliable. Defendant Wal-Mart Stores East, LP responded in opposition (Doc. 71). The Motion is denied. “At trial, the witnesses’ testimony must be taken in open court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a). The Rules prefer live, in-person testimony. Id. at advisory
697 (7th Cir. 2005). So federal courts place a significant emphasis on in-person testimony. Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a) advisory committee’s note to 1996 amendment (“The opportunity to judge the demeanor of a witness face-to-face is accorded great value in our tradition.”).
Ballesteros provides no convincing reason to permit remote testimony. Even if travel could establish good cause—which it generally can’t—a short trip across Alligator Alley is not enough. Likewise, the doctor’s unspecified appointments with patients next week do not to show good cause. Powers v. Target Corp., No. 19-cv-60922-BLOOM/Valle, 2020 WL 8970607, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2020) (holding “entirely foreseeable inconvenience” of a doctor “having to interrupt his busy schedule to attend trial in person” is not good cause). The Court set this case for a date certain almost two months ago. On this briefing, nothing unexpected occurred that would warrant permitting remote testimony. A recent case is instructive. Novello v. Progressive Express Ins., No. 8:19- cv-1618-KKM-JSS, 2021 WL 1751351, at *1-2 (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2021). There, Judge Mizelle rejected remote testimony of a witness who lived over a thousand miles from the courthouse. She held “mere inconvenience or expense or logistical difficulties associated with travel falls short of suppling the requisite good cause under Rule 43(a).” Jd. at *2. The result here is the same. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Plaintiff's Motion to Allow Dr. Robert Norton to Testify at Trial via Video Conferencing/Zoom in leu of Live Appearance (Doc. 69) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on July 12, 2021.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record