(Reuters) - California-based Sutter Health is resisting a bid from plaintiffs' lawyers to hold a virtual trial next month in a $400 million antitrust class action, arguing that such a proceeding would be "unauthorized" and "unfair."

In a court filing on Tuesday, Sutter Health's attorneys at Jones Day said a remote trial, where witnesses testify via video, "would lack the fundamental elements that have long been regarded as critical to our jury system." The complaint, pending since 2012 in San Francisco federal court, accused Sacramento-based Sutter of coercive conduct to maintain a monopoly on medical services, a claim the health system denies.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, judges have confronted new and challenging hurdles to keep cases moving, and video capabilities were swiftly embraced as one measure.

In-person trials resumed in many courts last year, but judges are returning to remote hearings amid the new surge in coronavirus infections driven by the Omicron variant. Trials in California's Northern District court are on hold at least through Jan. 26. A Kansas federal judge on Wednesday pushed a major antitrust trial against Mylan NV to Feb. 22.

Sutter's attorneys contend that the complex legal issues, 60 live witnesses and "enormous" potential impact justify an in-person trial.

"It is unrealistic to expect a remote jury sitting in their homes with all the real-world distractions would give the necessary time and attention to the evidence and issues over a four- to five-week trial," Jones Day partner David Kiernan said in the filing. "The court should not use this as the pilot case for determining whether remote jury trials can be done in a way that is fair and protects the parties' rights."

Kiernan, head of litigation for Jones Day in San Francisco, did not return a message seeking comment. A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Matthew Cantor of Constantine Cannon, declined to comment.

Cantor said in Tuesday's filing that "there is no guarantee that COVID-related circumstances will be any better after another substantial adjournment."

Sutter "fails to cite any law holding that a case should not proceed remotely due" to the large dollar amounts in question, Cantor told the court.

"The class has waited nearly a decade for their day in court. They should have it now," Cantor said. "Plaintiffs are confident that any challenges presented by COVID in trying this case can be met."

The case is Sidibe v. Sutter Health, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:12-cv-04854-LB.

For plaintiffs: Matthew Cantor of Constantine Cannon

For defendant: David Kiernan of Jones Day

Read more:

Federal, state courts increasingly cancel January trials citing Omicron

Federal appeals courts restrict public operations amid COVID surge

Judge defends excluding unvaccinated juror in law firm associate's trial

The COVID-19 pandemic and the courts — Aggravation or opportunity?

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.