Bell v. United States, 3:17-cv-96-J-32JRK. (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20190807910
Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 06, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2019
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN , District Judge . Plaintiff Robert Bell says it costs too much to bring his medical experts to testify in person at trial and wants the Court to authorize less costly video depositions in lieu of live testimony. (Doc. 47). Defendant United States of America objects. (Doc. 48). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—not to mention long-understood principles of how trials should be conducted—place a premium on live trial testimony, tested by live cross-examination,
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN , District Judge . Plaintiff Robert Bell says it costs too much to bring his medical experts to testify in person at trial and wants the Court to authorize less costly video depositions in lieu of live testimony. (Doc. 47). Defendant United States of America objects. (Doc. 48). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—not to mention long-understood principles of how trials should be conducted—place a premium on live trial testimony, tested by live cross-examination, i..
More
ORDER
TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Robert Bell says it costs too much to bring his medical experts to testify in person at trial and wants the Court to authorize less costly video depositions in lieu of live testimony. (Doc. 47). Defendant United States of America objects. (Doc. 48).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—not to mention long-understood principles of how trials should be conducted—place a premium on live trial testimony, tested by live cross-examination, in front of the fact-finder. None of the exceptions to that practice are presented here. Thus, Plaintiff's request is due to be denied.
Having said that, the Court is cognizant of the expense of presenting expert testimony at trial, contributing to the high cost of litigation. While the undersigned has some opinions of how this might be addressed in the future, those kind of structural changes are beyond the purview of this Order.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Plaintiff's Motion to Secure the Video Deposition Testimony of His Rule 26 Witnesses In Lieu of Live Testimony (Doc. 47) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
