Commonwealth Court virtual proceedings. Photo: YouTube

The YouTube channel was divided into nine panels, with six attorneys, one court crier and one court reporter looking on from different home offices. One panel was empty. That panel showed a black leather office chair and a wood paneled wall of a Commonwealth Court courtroom.

The chair remained empty as all the necessary players were getting ready to take part in the first livestreamed session of Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Court, which handles cases involving state agencies. After a brief explanation from the court crier, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board Attorney Robert McAteer chimed in with a question.

"This may sound silly: Do you want us to stand up in our own houses when he comes on screen?" McAteer asked.

The question was the first of a handful of novel practical considerations that came before the court as it took its proceedings online in an effort to keep the wheels of justice moving while courthouses across the state remain largely closed to the public.

Much like the need to hold the proceedings online rather than in person, the only case on the court's virtual docket arose in large part from the public health concerns that have arisen out of the coronavirus pandemic, which has swept across the country.

The case, captioned MFW Wine v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, deals with the Liquor Control Board's practice of barring specialty wine vendors from delivering special orders directly to customers, rather than through a state-owned liquor facility first. The plaintiffs, which consist of two wine sellers and a Philadelphia-area restaurant, argued that the practice, coupled with Gov. Tom Wolf's order from mid-March shutting down all state liquor stores, has effectively zeroed out their businesses, since sellers have no way to deliver products and the restaurants have no access.

The crux of the plaintiffs' complaint is that state liquor laws were recently changed to allow for direct deliveries of specialty products to customers, and that the PLCB has no discretion about whether to follow the order. The PLCB, however, has countered that recent changes to the fiscal code indicated that the board did not need to allow these direct deliveries.

The proceeding Tuesday was an evidentiary hearing, overseen by Judge P. Kevin Brobson. He was hearing the case in the court's original jurisdiction.

Brobson began the proceedings noting that the court was "making history" by holding the proceedings entirely virtually. He thanked Commonwealth Court President Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt, as well as the IT staff, saying they worked "'tirelessly" to implement a secure and user-friendly solution.

"Today we do what we have always done, just a little differently," Brobson said. "It's not a sign of what's to come, rather a sign of where we are."

Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads attorneys John Papianou and Joseph Samuel represented the plaintiffs. Along with McAteer, attorneys Matthew Thren and Rodrigo Diaz represented the PLCB.

A partner at MFW Wines and the sole proprietor of A6 Wine Co., as well as the owner of Bloomsday Cafe, were sworn in over YouTube and took the virtual witness stand to make the plaintiffs' case.

Although the liquor control board has begun to reopen facilities, only one location in Philadelphia is handling specialty orders and only on a limited basis, according to the testimony. The plaintiffs testified those changes are not an adequate basis for the owners to begin rehiring all the employees they have had to lay off.

"I don't trust it will be able to consistently supply my operation," Zach Morris, owner of Bloomsday Cafe, said, noting that he has laid off all 40 of his employees.

Defense attorneys called several officials with the PLCB to give evidence as well. Each testified about alleged ambiguities of the law, the difficulties the department has faced operating under the partial shutdown, and the practical difficulties implementing direct delivery.

At one point, however, Brobson re-focused a line of questioning from a PLCB lawyer, saying the case would likely hinge on issues of agency discretion.

"You don't just throw your hands up in the air and say we don't know what the legislation means so we're just not going to do it," Brobson said. "I'm not sure that's going to be a persuasive argument."

Although several courthouses across the country have begun holding hearings and argument sessions online, Pennsylvania courts have remained mostly closed to the public. However, along with the Commonwealth Court hearing in MFW Wine, there were several signs Tuesday that restrictions for the judicial system are beginning to loosen.

Also on Tuesday, the Superior Court announced it would begin to hear oral arguments by phone starting April 30, and the Supreme Court also announced it was allowing local courts to begin restoring limited operations.

In a press statement announcing the Commonwealth Court's decision to livestream the hearing, Leavitt said moving the proceedings online was the best way to maintain both safety and address the issues before the court.

"This is an unprecedented time in our history, but the work of the court continues, making it imperative that we find ways to adapt to the new normal," Leavitt said.

The session Tuesday was not without a few technical hiccups. The initial link malfunctioned about a minute into the live stream, which required court officials to send out a second link shortly into the proceedings. At one point several participants also said they'd lost video feeds, and at other points a few noisy computers sidetracked the proceedings. One witness also had difficulty getting her video feed to work. But for the most part, the streaming was seamless.

Back before the proceedings officially began, when it came to the question about standing for Brobson as he entered the court, the court crier laughed and said no, attorneys could remain seated.

"We all may not be fully dressed appropriately for court from the waist down," he joked.