One Louisiana lawyer has discovered a novel use for YouTube. He has filed a pleading electronically (see Keith Forman’s prior posts on electronic filing in Maryland, here and here), and hyperlinked that pleading to video deposition clips stored on a YouTube page. This goes beyond simply footnoting a web page.

The lawyer, John Denenea, Jr. has essentially incorporated the video deposition into his opposition to summary judgment. As most lawyers know, a video deposition can be much more effective than the transcribed version because the viewer can observe witness behavior, including those long pauses before answering questions that do not appear on the transcribed version.

Here is a link to the pleading, and here is a link to one of the videos.

First, the problems with this practice:

1. Mr. Denenea posts numerous video deposition clips on the YouTube site “Video Deposition Bank.” There are clips from two different cases there, as well as some other videos (training videos from State Farm). Many of those clips are not cited in the pleading (presumably they are referred to in other filed pleadings), and are therefore extraneous to the pleading at issue. They may be somewhat distracting to a judge who might click on other videos that are not properly part of the pleading. It might be better to have a separate page for each pleading’s videos.
2. There is no information on exactly what “Video Deposition Bank” is. Is it a service provided to attorneys? Is it a site created by Mr. Denenea and his firm? I’m not sure if it is a third-party vendor, or actually involved in the litigation.
3. “Video Deposition Bank” has listed one video as a “favorite.” The favorite video is a clip of an Aerosmith song. That does not strike me as very professional. Besides, why risk alienating a judge who might not like Aerosmith?
4. The feed could be more professional if the videos could be hosted directly on Mr. Denenea’s firm’s website. Many people still view YouTube as a site for teenagers to display unruly behavior.
5. Sad to say, but some judges may not be technologically sophisticated enough to understand the technology. Confusion can cause frustration, which is not something you want in the person deciding whether to grant summary judgment.
6. Invariably, other random YouTube clips are linked to on the right-hand side of the page. Do you really want the judge watching a State Farm commercial in Mandarin?

Now, the advantages of this technique:

1. The comments have been disabled, which prevents random YouTube viewers from discussing the videos.
2. Mr. Denenea takes the precautionary step of attaching the deposition transcript as an exhibit, but he includes a hyperlink, wisely truncated using bit.ly, allowing the reader to jump to the video by clicking on the link, or by entering the address in any web browser.
3. A picture is worth a thousand words. A moving picture—more so. This can bring the case to life for the judge in a way that a black and white transcript cannot.
4. A hyperlinked video can be transmitted with the electronic pleading, whereas the disc containing the video would have to be mailed to the court, creating a lag-time in the judge’s ability to view it.
5. This gives the judge flexibility in reading the case documents—he can access the videos anywhere he has an internet connection, and does not need to keep copies of depositions or discs on hand.

Overall, I like this idea. It is smart and, with a little fine-tuning, can be a sophisticated way to show a judge that you are in control of a case.

Powered by Bookmarkify™