Judge Denies Perricone's Request to Testify Remotely, Citing Late Filing and Questions About Pleadings' Authorship; Motions Reset to Oct. 31

A chancery judge denied Miss Perricone's request to present testimony remotely under Rule 43.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, concluding her motion was filed too late and noting concerns about whether pleadings were authored by the party or by another person or technology. The court reset the related motions for Oct. 31.

The judge explained Rule 43.01 requires a motion for permission to present testimony by audio-visual means to be filed at least 60 days before trial to allow opposing parties an opportunity to object; Perricone's filing did not meet that deadline. Beyond the timing issue, the judge said the substance and breadth of Perricone's filings raised questions about whether they were personally drafted, mentioning the possibility of assistance from another person or artificial intelligence.

The court denied the remote-testimony request and offered Perricone an opportunity to appear in person; the judge offered Oct. 31 as the reset date to give her time to travel to Tennessee. The ruling also covered the father's pending Rule 11 motion and indicated that the father's challenges would be addressed when the parties appear in person. The guardian ad litem was noted as present on Zoom outside the courtroom.

The judge advised counsel to be prepared for the rescheduled hearing and declined to consider remote testimony for party or expert witnesses absent exceptional circumstances in the interest of justice.