§ 6-2104.Trial court procedure.

§ 6-2104 walks a judge through the mechanics of an already-authorized livestream. The default is simple: the proceeding convenes in open court with the stream running. From there, the rule builds in a process for the moments when someone wants that stream interrupted.

If counsel or a self-represented litigant asks to limit or close access because evidence is extremely sensitive or confidential, the court has to rule on the record before that evidence comes in — the person asking must describe the evidence and identify the specific overriding interest at stake, and the court should get every other party’s agreement or objection on the record too. A judge can also raise the issue without a party’s request, though the rule urges caution about doing so over a party’s objection.

Before halting or ending the stream, the court has to find on the record that protecting the evidence or witness outweighs the ordinary presumption of public presentation, and has to first consider real alternatives — taking testimony by affidavit, switching to audio only, blocking exhibits from screen-sharing, hearing a child witness in chambers, or a temporary pause. If the court opts for a lesser restriction instead of a full halt, it has to state a substantial reason and explain why nothing less restrictive would work. If it does halt or end the stream, it has to recite specific findings: the overriding interest, the particular testimony or evidence justifying closure, that access is being interrupted or ended, that no less restrictive option would suffice, and anything else § 6-204 requires. Everything else in the proceeding that does not clear this threshold stays on the livestream.