Ward v. M/Y UTOPIA IV et al

Filing 210

ORDER denying without prejudice 187 Motion for Leave to Permit Remote Testimony. Signed by Senior Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 9/25/2024. See attached document for full details. (ls)

United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Eric Ward, and others, Plaintiffs,
v.
M/Y Utopia IV, Official No.
1305829, MMSI No. 339328000,
her engines, tackle, gear,
appurtenances, etc., in rem, and
Utopia Yachting, LLC, in personam,
Defendants.

)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 22-23847-Civ-Scola
)
)
)
In Admiralty
)
)
)

Order On the Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave to Permit
Remote Testimony
The Plaintiff request that this Court allow Plaintiff Eric Ward’s treating
psychologist, Sarah Barkley, to testify remotely because her husband is now
required to travel the week of the trial (October 7, 2024), and they do not have
childcare should Ms. Barkley be required to testify in person.
The Court is, of course, sympathetic to the constraints and requirements
of childcare. However, the Plaintiff has not shown, in these circumstances, the
“good cause in compelling circumstances” required under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 43(a) to permit remote testimony.
First, Ms. Barkley’s husband’s business travel is not “last minute” as the
Plaintiff claims. The Plaintiff, Ms. Barkley, and her husband have known about
his business travel nearly a month before trial was set to begin. The Plaintiff
has not explained why Ms. Barkley’s husband’s business travel cannot be
rescheduled, and why his wife’s testimony should not be given precedence,
given the fact that this trial was scheduled for the week of October 7, 2024, in
late June of this year. (ECF No. 141.)
Second, the Defendants have represented in their response that they
have offered a proposal whereby Ms. Barkley can testify out-of-turn to
accommodate her schedule. The Plaintiff does not explain why this proposal
would not work.
Third, Ms. Barkley is an important witness in this trial. As the Plaintiff
explains, “[i]mportantly, Barkley has diagnosed Plaintiff Eric Ward with PTSD
from the subject collision and her testimony to the jury would be crucial to
explain her diagnosis and her treatment of those symptoms.” (Pl.’s Mot., ECF
No. 187 at 1.) The Advisory Committee Notes to the Rules of Civil Procedure
explain that, “the importance of presenting live testimony in court cannot be

forgotten” as it provides for the “the opportunity to judge the demeanor of a
witness face-to-face is accorded great value in our tradition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 43
advisory committee notes to 1996 amendment.
Therefore, the Court denies without prejudice the Plaintiff’s Motion
(ECF No. 187.) The Plaintiff may refile its motion should it believe it still has
good cause given the Court’s reasoning above.
Done and ordered, in Miami, Florida, on September 25, 2024.
________________________________
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge