VAUGHN

v.

3M COMPANY

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Remote Testimony, seeking to present the trial testimony of two third-party witnesses, Damon Chatterton and Tarrah Schubert, by way of videoconference due to personal, childcare, and/or school-related conflicts that “prevent” these witnesses from traveling to Florida to testify in person. See ECF No. 135 at 1. On consideration, the motion is denied. Trial testimony “must be taken in open court” unless a federal statute or rule provides otherwise. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) vests district courts with discretion to allow remote testimony on a showing of “good cause in compelling circumstances and with appropriate safeguards.” See Toland v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 855 F. App’x 486, 491 (11th Cir. 2021). This standard is “most persuasive[ly]” met where “unexpected reasons, such as accident or illness,” prevent a witness from attending trial in person, and most easily if both sides agree to remote testimony. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a) advisory committee’s note to 1996 amendment. Other possible justifications, however, “must be approached cautiously,” and “a party who could reasonably foresee the circumstances offered to justify [remote] testimony will have special difficulty in showing good cause and the compelling nature of the circumstances.” Id. Mere inconvenience or logical difficulties cannot satisfy the standard. Id.; Novello v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., No. 8:19cv1618,

2021 WL 1751351, at 2 (M.D. Fla. May⁴, 2021). Here, the trial has been set to proceed in Gainesville, Florida for more than six months, since October 5, 2021. See ECF No. 20. Defendants have known of the nature and apparent centrality of Chatterton and Schubert’s testimony to their case for nearly that long, if not longer.¹ The witnesses’ presence in distant locations is not a surprise, no accident or illness has constrained either witness’s ability to travel, and their childcare and school-related issues clearly are not unique, sudden or unforeseeable.2 Defendants have not explained what alternative arrangements were explored in advance of trial or why they waited until the eleventh hour to raise this issue.3 Nor have they offered any explanation for why they did not obtain

The significance of Chatterton and Schubert’s live testimony in the context of this case cannot be overstated. “Vaughn’s credibility is the central issue in this trial,” according to Defendants, see ECF No. 103-11 at 1, and these two witnesses will provide the only direct evidence (in the form of opinion testimony) on that “central” issue. The witnesses may also have personal knowledge of some relevant facts, but it is clear from the pretrial briefing that any minimal import of their factual testimony will be far overshadowed by their personal opinions that Vaughn is a liar.⁴ In this

Court’s view, absent the most compelling and unforeseeable of circumstances, opinion testimony of that nature demands a live, in-person presentation of both direct and cross-examination. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a) advisory committee’s note to 1996 amendment (“The importance of presenting live testimony in court cannot be forgotten. The very ceremony of trial and the presence of the factfinder may exert a powerful force for truthtelling. The opportunity to judge the demeanor of a witness face-to-face is accorded great value in our tradition.”); Ballesteros v. Wal-Mart

Stores, LP, No. 2:19cv881, 2021 WL 2917553, at 1 (M.D. Fla. July 12, 2021) (“There is no technology to date that can substitute for a juror looking a witness in

In short, Defendants have failed to show “good cause in compelling circumstances” to justify the relief sought. Accordingly, their motion for remote testimony, ECF No. 135, is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, on this 18th day of April, 2022.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE