Subsection (b) was amended consistent with the 2022 amendments to Civil Rule 43(b) to facilitate remote testimony by eliminating the requirement that a party seeking to present live testimony from a remote location establish “compelling circumstances.” Factors that may be relevant to whether good cause exists to allow contemporaneous remote testimony include, but are not limited to:
(1) any agreement of the parties;
(2) the age, infirmity, or illness of the witness;
(3) the convenience of the proposed witness and the parties;
(4) the willingness of the witness to testify in person;
(5) the cost of producing the witness in person in relation to the importance of the testimony; and
(6) any unfair prejudice or surprise to another party. Videoconferencing is strongly preferred over audio-only transmission, although the latter may be sufficient in some cases, and the court may require videoconferencing as an appropriate safeguard. Other examples of appropriate safeguards include, but are not limited to:
(1) prohibiting anyone from being physically present with the witness, or requiring the identification of any such person;
(2) prohibiting the witness from consulting notes or other documents, or requiring disclosure of any such documents;
(3) prohibiting electronic or other communications with the witness during the testimony;
(4) establishing procedures for showing documents or exhibits to the witness during direct and cross examination; (5) establishing procedures to ensure that the witness’s testimony can be seen and/or heard; (6) establishing requirements to ensure that the witness’s surroundings or backdrop does not cause unfair prejudice; and (7) requiring the witness and the parties to test arrangements before the witness testifies. This rule was amended to make it more consistent with Civil Rule 43. Section (b) has been amended to provide for testimony by contemporaneous transmission from a different location in exceptional circumstances. In accordance with D.C. Code § 16-4601.10 (b) (2012 Repl.), which is based on § 111 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the court may permit an individual residing in another state to testify by telephone or electronic means. This Rule is intended to be consistent with D.C. Code § 14-102 (Impeachment of Witnesses). Pursuant to SCR-Dom. Rel. 2(b)(5), whenever a person is required to take an oath, the person may make a solemn affirmation instead. For provisions on the admissibility of business records, see SCR-General Family Q.
