The Senate Committee on Judiciary on April 14 took testimony on House Bill 2461, which would modify ORS 45.400s notice requirements for requesting remote testimony in civil cases. The measure would remove the statutory presumptive requirement that remote-testimony requests be made at least 30 days before the testimony date and instead require notice sufficiently in advance to allow the opposing party to challenge the good-cause factors or to raise any prejudice.

Mark Peterson (appearing remotely), executive director of the Council on Court Procedures, told the committee the council proposed the change after the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that remote testimony can be an effective tool. Peterson said ORS 45.400 currently constrains rules changes the council made to the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure and that removing the 30-day presumption would eliminate a predictable procedural attack that some attorneys might raise in close cases. He said the bill retains judicial control: a judge still must grant permission for remote testimony and can consider whether facilities and reliable technology are available for the court, counsel, parties, and witnesses.

Peterson described the council as a 23-member body that drafts rule changes for court procedure and said the measure passed the House previously with a 55-0 vote on the House floor.

Senators and witnesses discussed whether removing the 30-day presumption would undermine the courts ability to manage hearings if remote facilities or technology were unreliable. Peterson acknowledged the risk but said judges have tools to exclude or limit remote testimony when the record cannot be reliably created and that the proposed language adds an explicit consideration of whether reliable facilities or technology are reasonably available for all participants.

The committee closed the public hearing on House Bill 2461; testimony emphasized the bills access-to-justice rationale and its intent to align statute with current remote-testimony practice.