The Hybrid Trial in Action Implemented by the Delaware Chancery Court
In the case I just tried, a hybrid solution for court proceedings was smartly implemented by the Delaware Court of Chancery where the court suggested using a third-party technology solution provider to handle the logistical and technical complexities of a hybrid trial in a complex litigation matter.
October 27, 2021 at 09:00 AM
7 minute read
Michael Dockterman of Steptoe and Johnson. Courtesy photo
Introduction
Facing renewed challenges from COVID-19 variants after reopening in parts of the country earlier this summer, courts once again must decide whether to try cases without full in-person attendance. In the case I just tried, a hybrid solution for court proceedings was smartly implemented by the Delaware Court of Chancery where the court suggested using a third-party technology solution provider to handle the logistical and technical complexities of a hybrid trial in a complex litigation matter. Based on our recent experience, the hybrid solution is a model for the future of complex trials.
Overview
In New Castle County, Delaware, I was the lead trial lawyer in a one-week complex trial before Vice Chancellor Joseph Slights. Our client, the plaintiff seller, sought specific performance from the defendant buyer who claimed it was excused from buying the seller's assets because the seller breached its representation to conduct the business in the ordinary course of business, which the contract defined as being consistent with past practices, during the first two weeks of the global pandemic. The trial was planned for in-person testimony in the courtroom, but a key witness expressed concern for his health if he had to travel to Delaware. With permission from the Court of Chancery, the trial became a hybrid-type trial where this key witness would testify remotely from New York while the court and authorized team members participated virtually from Delaware during his testimony.
COVID-19 Backdrop
The case was filed just as the pandemic spread across the country and moved quickly through remote discovery. With the trial looming, the Delaware Court of Chancery reopened and we were excited for an in-person trial with social distancing and precautionary limited attendance. The Chancery Court had adopted procedures for conducting remote trials in the pandemic but we really wanted to be back in the courtroom to be able to employ the tools of our trade. Just as we were gathering in Delaware, the Delta variant set in. We wondered if the trial would proceed and what kinds of restrictions on courtroom access we would face. Would the trial shift to being all virtual or would we be able to be in court for some of the work? With the limitations on attendance, how could we assure a "public" trial and how can we make certain that there was balance between witnesses appearing in person and the witness who would testify through video links? The court was willing to be creative and flexible, which put many options on the table. Dealing with the technical issues of a hybrid trial is not something we wanted to face. Lawyers are accustomed to using technology in the courtroom" but this is a step "beyond using technology to create a virtual courtroom and we did not want to divert our attention from the business at hand. At the same time, our client stakeholders were vitally interested in the proceedings and wanted to monitor them in real time even though they could not be in the courtroom. Fortunately for the parties and the witnesses who would testify live, the vice chancellor and court staff recently had implemented virtual access technology for trials through a third-party provider, CourtScribes. That made things easy for our team because we had worked with CourtScribes (and its predecessors) before, knew them to be innovators whose approach would make things easy and intuitive for the lawyers involved, and their track record gave our clients all the confidence they needed to move forward.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![Chancery: Common Stock Worthless in 'Jacobson v. Akademos' and Transaction Was Entirely Fair Chancery: Common Stock Worthless in 'Jacobson v. Akademos' and Transaction Was Entirely Fair](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/2d/f0/bc3288d0497d930c63b55a515237/gardner-judge-767x633.jpg)
Chancery: Common Stock Worthless in 'Jacobson v. Akademos' and Transaction Was Entirely Fair
5 minute read![The Importance of Contractual Language in Analyzing Post-Closing Earnout Disputes The Importance of Contractual Language in Analyzing Post-Closing Earnout Disputes](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/delbizcourt/contrib/content/uploads/sites/394/2024/10/Felger-Ekiner-2-767x633.jpg)
The Importance of Contractual Language in Analyzing Post-Closing Earnout Disputes
6 minute read![Delaware Supreme Court Upholds Court of Chancery’s Refusal to Blue Pencil an Unreasonable Covenant Not to Compete Delaware Supreme Court Upholds Court of Chancery’s Refusal to Blue Pencil an Unreasonable Covenant Not to Compete](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/delbizcourt/contrib/content/uploads/sites/394/2021/09/Lewis-Lazarus-767x633.jpg)
Delaware Supreme Court Upholds Court of Chancery’s Refusal to Blue Pencil an Unreasonable Covenant Not to Compete
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250