- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
In re East Valley Cattle
ORDER - 1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF IDAHO
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REMOTE TESTIMONY
On June 11, 2024, creditor Rexel USA, Inc. dba Platt Electric Supply ("Creditor") filed a proof of claim in In re East Valley Cattle, LLC, 24-40160-NGH.1Claims Reg.
1 As the caption indicates, In re East Valley Cattle, LLC was consolidated with other entities associated with Millenkamp Cattle, Inc. The proofs of claim and any associated litigation stemming therefrom are filed only in the specific case related to that proof of claim. Accordingly, references to the docket in this Order are to In re East Valley Cattle, LLC, 24-40160-NGH. IN RE: MILLENKAMP CATTLE, INC., Debtor. Case No. 24-40158-NGH Filing relates to: ☐ ALL DEBTORS ☐ Millenkamp Cattle, Inc. ☐ Idaho Jersey Girls ☐ East Valley Cattle ☐ Millenkamp Properties ☐ Millenkamp Properties II ☐ Millenkamp Family ☐ Goose Ranch ☐ Black Pine Cattle ☐ Millenkamp Enterprises ☐ Idaho Jersey Girls Jerome Dairy Jointly Administered With Case Nos.: 24-40159-NGH (Idaho Jersey Girls) 24-40160-NGH (East Valley Cattle) 24-40161-NGH (Millenkamp Props) 24-40162-NGH (Millenkamp Props II) 24-40163-NGH (Millenkamp Family) 24-40164-NGH (Goose Ranch) 24-40166-NGH (Black Pine Cattle) 24-40167-NGH (Millenkamp Enters.) 24-40165-NGH (Idaho Jersey Girls Jerome Dairy) Chapter 11 Cases
1
No. 5. On May 9, 2025, Debtor objected to the claim, Doc. No. 51, and Creditor subsequently filed a response, Doc. No. 55. On July 7, 2025, the matter was set for an in- person evidentiary hearing to be conducted in Boise, Idaho, on September 23, 2025. Doc. No. 61. On September 19, 2025, four days before the scheduled hearing, Creditor filed an "Unopposed Motion to Permit Remote Testimony of Third-Party Justin Blanco."
Doc. No. 69.
Creditor's motion is denied. First, while Creditor indicates the motion is
"unopposed," nothing on its face suggests Debtor does not oppose the motion, nor does it bear Debtor's counsel's signature. Second, Creditor has not set the motion for hearing, thus rendering it ex parte. Next, despite the fact the hearing has been scheduled since July 7, 2025, and Creditor designated Mr. Blanco as a witness on September 16, 2025, the motion to permit him to testify remotely was not filed until the Friday afternoon before a hearing set to begin at 9:00 am the following Tuesday morning.2 Furthermore, the reasons given in support of the motion are not compelling. The principal reason is simply that Mr. Blanco will have to travel. Other reasons are the lack of prejudice and the fact that the admissibility of the exhibits about which he will testify is not disputed. In short, there is no emergency or other compelling reason to permit him to testify remotely at this late date.
2 Filing an objection to a proof of claim creates a contested matter governed by Bankruptcy Rule 9014. Under Rule 9014(b), the motion must be served within the time limits set by Rule 9006(d). Rule 9006(d) generally requires parties to serve both the motion and notice of hearing at least seven days before the hearing date.
2
Perhaps most importantly, it is the Court's duty to judge the veracity of witness testimony, and viewing a witness over Zoom or other electronic media makes that task more difficult. In addition, technological challenges can interfere with remote testimony. As such, this Court rarely permits testimony to be given remotely and generally requires a compelling reason to do so. None is presented here. Additionally, when compelling circumstances justify allowing remote testimony, parties must request it well before the scheduled hearing, except in truly unforeseeable situations. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Creditor's Motion to Permit Remote Testimony of Third-Party Justin Blanco, Doc. No. 69, is DENIED.
DATED: September 22, 2025 _________________________
NOAH G. HILLEN
Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
3
Alert