The respondents brought a motion under Rule 1.08(8) seeking an order that cross-examinations on affidavits proceed in person rather than virtually, citing a history of surreptitious recording by the self-represented applicant.
The court found that the respondents failed to establish sufficient justification to depart from the originally agreed-upon virtual format.
Applying the factors in Rule 1.08(6) and principles from the case law, the court ordered that cross-examinations proceed virtually, with additional protective orders prohibiting any recording or publication of the transcripts by the parties.
The timetable was amended accordingly, while the hearing date remained unchanged.
