Court Procedures: Changes in Response to Coronavirus

As the Coronavirus pandemic further envelops the United States, many state and local governments enacted stay in place restrictions which limit routine personal and business activities.  Despite those orders, a myriad of courts, both state and federal, remain open subject to emergency orders impacting existing and future civil litigation.  

• Court Access: To limit risk of exposure to and the spread of the Coronavirus, courts imposed restrictions to limit courthouse access.  
  
  
• Trial Delays and Deadlines:  Many courts have placed limitations on or simply delayed previously scheduled jury and bench trials.  Trial delays notwithstanding, other deadlines largely remain in effect.  For example, in California, the Chief Justice issued a statewide order suspending all jury trials in California’s superior courts for 60 days and allowing courts to immediately adopt new rules to address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. 
  
  
• Hearing Restrictions:  Numerous courts have cancelled non-essential hearings; however, what is “non-essential” varies from one court to another.  In lieu of cancellation, some courts have transitioned from in-person to remote hearings utilizing videoconference, telephonic or other means.  Because alternative hearing technologies also vary, acquisition of additional technology resources may be necessary.  For example, in Texas, the Office of Court Administration “is providing judges ability to stream and host court proceedings via Zoom and YouTube. Under the Open Courts Provision of the Texas Constitution, it requires that all courts maintain public access.”  
  
  
• Evidentiary Requirements:  Some courts relaxed evidentiary requirements allowing courts to consider sworn out of court statements and remote testimony as evidence. Lawyers should carefully balance the value of these alternatives to the risks on appeal.
  
  
• Other Remote Proceedings: If faced with impending discovery deadlines, there are a variety of litigation support services equipped to provide remote / videoconference depositions.  Similarly, some mediators provide remote mediation services.
  
  
• Reliance on Emergency Orders: Some emergency orders purport to modify substantive legal rights or limitations including, for example, the tolling of the statute of limitations for bringing claims.  There remains substantial debate regarding whether such orders are enforceable and whether it is appropriate to rely on such emergency order provisions.  

Due to a lack of uniformity, it is imperative to carefully review and understand each court’s emergency procedures and to consider how to proceed if any of those procedures might exceed the court’s authority.  Suffice it to say that, due to the massive societal disruption caused by the Coronavirus, court procedures will continue to change and everything will take longer. 

권장 조치에 대한 자세한 내용은 폴리 관계 파트너에게 문의하시기 바랍니다. 전 세계 코로나바이러스 확산을 모니터링하는 데 도움이 되는 추가 웹 기반 리소스를 확인하려면 CDC와 세계보건기구를 방문하세요. 

폴리는 다학제적·다관할적 팀을 구성하여 다양한 산업 분야의 이해관계자들에게 코로나바이러스 확산으로 인한 법적·사업적 도전 과제를 해결할 수 있도록 풍부한 주제별 고객 지원 자료를 마련했습니다. 이 어려운 시기에 귀사의 사업을 지원하기 위한 최신 동향, 통찰력 및 자료를 확인하려면 폴리의 코로나바이러스 리소스 센터를 방문하십시오. 이 콘텐츠를 이메일로 직접 수신하려면 여기를 클릭하여 양식을 제출하십시오.