Whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause prohibits a State court from directly violating one of its own court rules, by failing to provide the litigants in a civil action the opportunity to participate in conferences which a State court rule mandates be provided to them, with respect to issues material to the claims involved

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court has made it clear that, where interactions between citizens and State actors directly impact issues relating to life, liberty, and property, the right to a hearing guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is an expansive one, encompassing all forms of hearings as well as conferences. However, the Court has never specifically considered the extent to which the right to participate in a conference is protected by the Due Process Clause, when the “State actor” is a State court, and the conference at issue is mandated by a State court’s own rules. The Court has also made clear when the opportunity for live testimony of critical witnesses is required by the Due Process Clause in State court criminal proceedings, to assure that a defendant receives a hearing “appropriate to the case.” However, the Court has never considered the question of when the opportunity to present live testimony is required in a State court civil action, or what other factors need to be considered to assure that State court civil litigants receive a hearing “appropriate to the case.” This petition provides the opportunity for the Court to address these important issues, by considering the following questions: 1. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits a State court from directly violating one of its own court rules, by failing to provide li QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued the litigants in a civil action the opportunity to participate in conferences which a State court rule mandates be provided to them, with respect to issues material to the claims involved. 2. Whether the litigants in a State court civil action fail to receive a hearing “appropriate to the case,” as required by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, when they are arbitrarily denied the benefits of a court rule intended to provide them with a fair opportunity to present the live testimony of a critical witness at the time of trial, and as a result of that denial are relegated to presenting the testimony of that witness via the inferior means of videotape. 3. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause is violated when, as the result of a State court’s arbitrary application of its own court rules, the litigants in a State court civil action are relegated to presentation of the testimony of a critical expert witness via videotape, while an opposing party in the same case is provided with the opportunity to present the live testimony of its own expert witnesses.