Revisiting New York's Witness Sequestration Rule
The application of New York's witness sequestration rule is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Its hallmark is the flexibility to apply the rule to guard against the risk of perjury. Counsel should be ready to ask the trial court to shape any sequestration rule to achieve this goal.
October 05, 2022 at 11:45 AM
14 minute read
Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 615 governs the exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom so that they may not hear the testimony of other witnesses. It makes exclusion mandatory upon the request of a party, or the court sua sponte. When the request is made, the court lacks the discretion to deny the request subject to four exceptions: one for natural persons who are parties in the action; one for an "officer or employee of a party" that is not a natural person; one for a person shown to be "essential" to a party's presentation of the party's case; and one for a person authorized by statute to be present.
Presently, FRE 615 is the subject of amendments proposed by the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, after a lengthy review and discussion process, and approved by the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure on June 7, 2022. It is being amended to alert the courts and parties about the possibility of issuing a witness exclusion order, frequently referred to as sequestration orders, that extends beyond the courtroom, and the hearing of trial testimony; and to clarify that the exception for party representatives is limited to one designated agent for each party. If approved by the Judicial Conference, U.S. Supreme Court and Congress, the amendments will take effect on Dec. 1, 2023.
The pendency of these amendments to the federal witness sequestration rule suggests a revisiting of New York's sequestration rule, which this column will undertake.
This content has been archived.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
© 2024 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 AllWhen It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
8 minute readFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readDeposing Former Mayor Bill de Blasio; Misrepresentations To Induce Investment: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Legaltech Rundown: LexisNexis Releases Lexis+ AI Mobile App, Hotshot Launches New M&A Training Simulation, and More
- 2Perkins Coie Boasts Diverse Partner Class
- 3NY Judge Indefinitely Delays Sentencing in Trump Hush Money Case
- 4US Supreme Court Tries to Define a 'Crime of Violence'
- 5How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'Think About Why You Want the Role, Because It Is Not an Easy Job,' Says Aaron Rubin of Morrison Foerster
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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