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
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
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