The defendant brought a motion seeking an order to permit a former employee, Ms. Cheryl Downing, to provide evidence by video conference from Texas during the trial.
The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the defendant failed to provide direct evidence of the witness's unwillingness or unavailability to testify in person, and that the general principle of oral evidence in open court should be upheld.
The court dismissed the motion, finding the affidavit evidence, which relied on double hearsay regarding the witness's refusal to attend in person, to be non-compliant with Rule 39.01(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court emphasized the importance of direct evidence for critical witnesses and the general principle of oral testimony in open court, as outlined in Rule 1.08.
