UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-23251-BLOOM/Louis

STONE TECHNOLOGY (HK) CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GLOBALGEEKS, INC.,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

ORDER ON EXPEDITED MOTION FOR 

VIRTUAL APPEARANCE OF WITNESSES IN TRIAL

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Amended Expedited Motion for Virtual 

Appearance of Witnesses in Trial. ECF No. [131] (“Motion”). Defendant submitted an expedited

response in opposition to the Motion. ECF No. [134] (“Response”). The Court has carefully 

reviewed the Motion, all related submissions, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is 

otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff requests that its two corporate representatives be permitted to appear virtually at 

trial because both witnesses live in China, explaining that, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, travel 

to and from China is very difficult. In particular, Plaintiff states that both the United States and 

China are implementing quarantine policies for travelers and are placing restrictions on the 

purchase of airline tickets. As such, Plaintiff proposes that these witnesses be permitted to virtually 

appear at trial from a neutral jurisdiction in Hong Kong. Defendant, however, opposes the Motion, 

arguing that Plaintiff has failed to establish any good cause or compelling circumstances for the 

requested relief, as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a). Rather, Defendant 
Case No. 20-cv-23251-BLOOM/Louis

2

contends that the request for Plaintiff’s witnesses to appear virtually at trial is premised solely 

upon the inconvenience to these witnesses. Defendant states that this inconvenience, on its own, 

is insufficient to justify the witnesses’ remote appearance, especially where Plaintiff drafted the 

underlying contractual agreements in this case to require litigation of the parties’ disputes in 

Florida. Defendant therefore argues that these travel inconveniences were reasonably foreseeable

from the filing of this action and that Plaintiff’s delay in raising this issue before the Court is 

grounds for denial. Finally, Defendant notes that allowing the witnesses’ virtual appearance at trial 

presents significant concerns, as evidenced by the parties’ experience in taking the remote 

deposition of one of Plaintiff’s corporate-representative witnesses.

II. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) states that:

At trial, the witnesses’ testimony must be taken in open court unless a federal 

statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, these rules, or other rules adopted by the 

Supreme Court provide otherwise. For good cause in compelling circumstances and 

with appropriate safeguards, the court may permit testimony in open court by 

contemporaneous transmission from a different location.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a). 

Moreover, the Advisory Committee Notes on the 1996 Amendment to Rule 43 clarify the

requisite “good cause” and “compelling circumstances,” explaining that

[c]ontemporaneous transmission of testimony from a different location is permitted 

only on showing good cause in compelling circumstances. 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. Transmission cannot be justified merely by showing that it is 

inconvenient for the witness to attend the trial.

The most persuasive showings of good cause and compelling circumstances 

are likely to arise when a witness is unable to attend trial for unexpected reasons, 

such as accident or illness, but remains able to testify from a different place. 

Contemporaneous transmission may be better than an attempt to reschedule the 

trial, particularly if there is a risk that other—and perhaps more important—

witnesses might not be available at a later time.
Case No. 20-cv-23251-BLOOM/Louis

3

Other possible justifications for remote transmission must be approached 

cautiously. Ordinarily depositions, including video depositions, provide a superior 

means of securing the testimony of a witness who is beyond the reach of a trial 

subpoena, or of resolving difficulties in scheduling a trial that can be attended by 

all witnesses. Deposition procedures ensure the opportunity of all parties to be 

represented while the witness is testifying. An unforeseen need for the testimony 

of a remote witness that arises during trial, however, may establish good cause and 

compelling circumstances. Justification is particularly likely if the need arises from 

the interjection of new issues during trial or from the unexpected inability to present 

testimony as planned from a different witness.

. . . .

A party who could reasonably foresee the circumstances offered to justify 

transmission of testimony will have special difficulty in showing good cause and 

the compelling nature of the circumstances. Notice of a desire to transmit testimony 

from a different location should be given as soon as the reasons are known, to 

enable other parties to arrange a deposition, or to secure an advance ruling on 

transmission so as to know whether to prepare to be present with the witness while 

testifying.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a) advisory committee’s note to 1996 amendment.

Here, Plaintiff has failed to establish any good cause or compelling circumstances

justifying its corporate representatives’ purported need to remotely appear at trial. Instead, the 

explanations submitted to the Court reflect the entirely foreseeable inconvenience to these 

witnesses of having to interrupt their schedule to attend trial in person, and the imposition of 

additional COVID-19 restrictions does not substantially affect this conclusion. Moreover, 

Plaintiff, in bringing this action, is responsible for bearing the burdens and costs of litigating its

case, including costs and restrictions associated with securing travel and lodging. As the Advisory 

Committee’s Notes explain, this inconvenience is not the type of “good cause” or “compelling 

circumstances” that would warrant granting Plaintiff’s Motion. See Bridges v. United States, No. 

3:15-cv-1248-J-25PBD, 2017 WL 3730569, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 30, 2017) (denying the 

plaintiff’s request for expert witnesses to testify remotely based on the experts’ alleged 

unavailability at trial because they lived and worked more than 100 miles from the courthouse); 

see also Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., No. 07-61295-CIV, 2011 WL 917726, at *1 
Case No. 20-cv-23251-BLOOM/Louis

4

(S.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2011) (concluding that the alleged financial and logistical burdens of attending 

trial did not constitute “good cause” or “compelling circumstances” for the purposes of Rule 43).

Likewise, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with any unexpected reason that would 

warrant its witnesses’ remote appearance. See Hamprecht v. Hamprecht, No. 2:12-cv-125-FtM29, 2012 WL 1367534, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2012) (denying motion to testify remotely at trial 

because the plaintiff failed to provide any “unexpected reasons” that would establish compelling 

circumstances under Rule 43). Indeed, trial in this matter has been scheduled since August 26, 

2020, see ECF No. [13], and Plaintiff’s corporate representatives have been on notice of the need 

to travel and appear in person for these proceedings for a significant amount of time. In light of 

Plaintiff’s delay in seeking this relief and in the absence of any compelling reasons justifying 

remote appearance, the Court is unpersuaded that relief should be granted under Rule 43(a). See 

Diamond Resorts Int’l, Inc. v. Aaronson, No. 6:17-cv-1394-Orl-37DCI, 2019 WL 3854762, at *1 

(M.D. Fla. Mar. 26, 2019) (denying request to permit expert to testify remotely at trial, and 

explaining that the motion failed to indicate “whether Plaintiffs informed [the expert] of the trial 

period that was set almost a year ago and the importance of his availability to testify at trial. . . . 

whether Plaintiffs could have reasonably foreseen availability conflicts . . . and what they did to 

ensure his appearance at trial”); see also Bridges, 2017 WL 3730569, at *1 (noting that trial had 

been set for more than a year and the plaintiff failed to explain why the witnesses did not keep 

their schedules open during the trial period). The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiff has failed 

to satisfy the requirement for “good cause in compelling circumstances” as set forth in Rule 43(a). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. [131], 

is DENIED. 
Case No. 20-cv-23251-BLOOM/Louis

5

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on July 12, 2021.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record