Remote depositions are more than a convenience to litigants and witnesses, a tool to trim expenses, or a means to move civil litigation forward amid a shortage of court reporters. They’re also having an impact on the substance of the law, as courts discover that considerations of geography and travel distances are less important than they might have been 10 or 20 years ago.
One example is the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which obliges trial courts to weigh whether the plaintiff’s decision where to file the complaint should be disturbed based on considerations that involve mostly the convenience of the parties and their witnesses, and whether justice can be effectively administered in the chosen forum.
Videoconferencing has made the cost-of-attendance factor ‘much less significant’ than it once was.
Travel distances for witnesses, lawyers, and jurors are commonly considered factors in the forum non conveniens calculus. Litigants who once relied on geography to argue that a plaintiff’s chosen forum imposed unfair burdens now confront a counterargument that did not exist a decade ago. Most discovery, and increasingly much trial testimony, can emanate from anywhere with a stable internet connection. Courts across the country are working out what that means for the venerable doctrine of forum non conveniens.
Illinois Policy Encourages Remote Testimony
A recent case, Mitchell v. Hart, No. 5-25-0115 (Ill. App. Ct., May 1, 2026), makes the point. In Mitchell, the court, applying settled equitable principles, affirmed a trial court’s decision that the plaintiff’s choice of forum should not be disturbed because of the physical distances witnesses and parties would need to travel for depositions and trial. Technology played a role in that decision. As the court noted:
[C]urrent technology allows the parties to present witness testimony through video-recorded evidence depositions, and the court’s available remote appearance technology allows the witnesses to present themselves live to the factfinder, no matter where the witness is physically located.
The court also noted that computer-generated images of the accident scene would be an adequate substitute for a physical visit by the jury in the event the case was tried.
By recognizing remote tools as a viable substitute for physical presence, the Mitchell court acknowledged the reduced weight that geography carries in the forum non conveniens calculus.
Along the way, the court cited two rule changes in Illinois, both intended to encourage greater use of remote proceedings. The first was Illinois Supreme Court Rule 45, revised in 2022 to address COVID-related challenges, and recently amended to further encourage the use of remote proceedings in Illinois courts. The second was a change to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 241, effective this year, which authorizes the trial court to permit remote testimony in civil trials and evidentiary proceedings.
Mitchell joins other recent Illinois appellate opinions weighing remote technology in forum disputes. In Adamian v. Balash, 260 N.E.3d 122 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024), a medical malpractice plaintiff argued that videoconferencing rendered forum non conveniens “obsolete” for intrastate transfers. The Adamian court rejected the obsolescence argument but agreed that technological developments “bear on the factors relevant to a forum non conveniens analysis.” As we noted at the time, technology-related factors were relevant, but public-interest factors ultimately prevailed.
And a 2023 ruling in Black v. Help at Home, LLC, 2023 WL 2017983, offered a useful framing: Videoconferencing has made the cost-of-attendance factor “much less significant” than it once was, but the factor still deserves consideration.
The bottom line in Illinois, and elsewhere, seems to be: remote technology tilts the scale, but it rarely decides the case alone.
Remote Depositions Are the Default Today
The numbers explain why the remote depositions are becoming a factor in forum non conveniens disputes. Remote depositions are a fixture in modern litigation. At the COVID-19 pandemic’s peak in 2021-22, an estimated 90% of depositions occurred online. What’s happening in 2026 is less certain. Some Internet reports suggest that roughly half of all depositions are taking place remotely. Possibly. But Esquire’s own experience suggests that the figure may be higher.
In trial courts across the country, remote proceedings are commonplace. A National Center for State Courts report from March 2024 found that courts in all 50 states now conduct remote or hybrid hearings for civil and criminal cases. The infrastructure that Mitchell takes for granted exists nationwide. Many litigators have built deposition practices around it. The American Bar Association’s Resolution 505, adopted in February 2023, codifies best practices for remote depositions, treating them as a permanent feature of civil practice rather than a pandemic-era expedient.
The Mitchell v. Hart decision offers practical lessons for parties on either side of a forum non conveniens dispute. Parties seeking transfer should not rely on conclusory assertions of inconvenience. The Mitchell court repeatedly emphasized that the defendants failed to provide affidavits from witnesses stating that the plaintiff’s choice of forum imposed actual hardship. Litigants now must explain why specific witnesses or evidence cannot reasonably be accommodated through remote means, and why live, in-person testimony matters for a particular case. More generally, parties defending forum choice should treat remote-deposition availability as a fully developed argument, not a novel one. Local court rules authorizing remote testimony will support this argument. When opposing counsel rely on geographic distance to bolster arguments in favor of moving the case to a particular jurisdiction, counter-arguments pointing out that distance has become largely a function of bandwidth will likely find a receptive audience.
When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 801.641.8304, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net.