The motion shall be served on all parties and on any person who has filed a demand for notice and shall be accompanied by a form of order.
File the motion 30 days before the hearing, unless the notice setting the hearing provides for less than 30 days notice, in which case, we must file the motion for telephonic participation within 5 days after receiving the hearing notice.
Rule 11 of the Arizona Rules of Probate Procedure Provides as follows:
Rule 11. Telephonic Appearances and Testimony
A. Upon timely written motion, a judicial officer may allow telephonic appearance during any proceeding. In the event more than one participant has requested telephonic appearance, the first party requesting telephonic appearance shall arrange at his or her expense for the call or conference call, unless the court orders otherwise.
B. Unless a shorter time is authorized by the judicial officer, a motion to allow telephonic testimony or argument shall be filed at least 30 days before the hearing, unless the notice setting the hearing provides for fewer than 30 days' notice, in which case the request shall be filed within five days after receipt of the notice setting the hearing. The motion shall be served on all parties and on any person who has filed a demand for notice and shall be accompanied by a form of order.
C. A party opposing a motion for telephonic appearance or telephonic testimony shall file a written response within five days after service of the motion.
D. Telephonic appearances and testimony shall be of such quality that the voices of all parties and counsel are audible to each participant, the judicial officer, and, where applicable, the certified reporter or electronic recording device.
CREDIT(S)
Added Sept. 16, 2008, effective
Jan. 1, 2009.
COMMENT
While telephonic appearance and testimony or argument are encouraged as time and cost-saving methods of addressing probate matters, a number of issues bear consideration. First, courts throughout the state have different telephone technology, some of which is better suited than others for telephonic appearances. For that reason, the judicial officer assigned to the case must approve the request in advance of the hearing.
Second, last-minute requests are discouraged. Judicial officers may not have an opportunity to consider a last-minute request because of the pressure of other court business.
Finally, a party should carefully consider a request to present telephonic testimony or arguments in a contested matter. A witness's demeanor while testifying is an important factor used by the court to assess a witness's credibility. A party who offers a witness by telephone may be at a disadvantage if the testimony is contradicted by a witness who personally appears. Judicial officers may reject an untimely request if it detracts from the court's ability to address other matters on the court's calendar or if it affects the court's ability to judge the demeanor of the witnesses in a contested matter.
Pima County Local Rules of Practice, Rule 3.9 provides as follows:
(3.9) Telephone Argument and Conferences. The Court may, in its discretion, order or allow oral argument on any motion or other proceeding by telephone conference call, provided that all conversations of all parties are audible to each participant and the judge. All requests to appear telephonically for hearings shall be presented to the Court prior to noon on the business day preceding the day scheduled for the hearing. Upon request of any party, such oral argument may be recorded by court reporter or other lawful method under such conditions as the judge shall deem practicable. The party requesting the hearing shall set up the conference call.
If we are going to request telephonic participation, and if we have less than 30 days prior to the hearing, it is best to contact the other parties and see if they will sign a stipulation to allow telephonic particiation. This gets us around the court having to set a hearing on the motion.
If more than one person (clients or lawyers) are going to participate telephonically, and if we are the first party to request telephonic participation, it is our responsibility to arrange a conference call. Some lawyers have good telephonic conferencing capability. Our phone system will do a fair job if two persons are being conferenced, but it degrades as more partipants are added. But our phone system is tricky to establish a conference even for two participants, For this reason, employing an online conferencing service is a good idea. Therefore: http://www.freeconferencecall.com/
Copyright © Paul B. Bartlett, P.C., 2003-2012 all rights reserved.