The Jury Returns
News and Updates on Court Matters and Reopening Operations
Reopening Procedures
Subscribe to Reopening Procedures's Posts

All Eyes on Georgia

By on Jan 11, 2021
Posted In , , ,

Americans are asking: “We know about Georgia’s elections, but what about its courts?” We’re here to tell you.

On Friday, the Georgia Supreme Court extended its prohibition on jury trials. The order notes that when the emergency is finally lifted, it will still be another month before trials start. And “[i]t also should be recognized that there are substantial backlogs of unindicted and untried cases, and due to ongoing public health precautions, these proceedings will not occur at the scale or with the speed they occurred before the pandemic.” It would appear that civil trials are not returning to Georgia state court any time soon.

In federal court, the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, in Atlanta, has continued all jury trials that were set for January and February.



The Jury Returns…Returns.

By on Jan 7, 2021
Posted In , ,

Happy New Year! 2021 begins as 2020 ended: mostly without jury trials. Some are determined to change that, however, which brings us to the latest in the saga of Judge Alan Albright’s US District Court for the Western District of Texas case, which we covered immediately below (and elsewhere).

When we left off, Judge Albright had retransferred the case for trial purposes from Austin to Waco so that he could hold a jury trial in January. The defendant had petitioned the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for mandamus to stop the trial. We noted that “the panel could grant the petition without addressing whether trials should be held in the current environment.” And in fact, that is exactly what happened. On December 23, the Federal Circuit found that Judge Albright had incorrectly applied the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit standard for retransfer under 28 USC § 1404 and lacked the inherent authority to retransfer. But then, the Federal Circuit wrote:

In granting mandamus, we do not hold that the district court lacks the ability to effectuate holding trial in the Waco Division. We only hold that it must effectuate such result under appropriate statutory authority, such as moving the entire action to the Waco Division after concluding, based on the traditional factors bearing on a § 1404(a) analysis, that “unanticipated post-transfer events frustrated the original purpose for transfer” of the case from Waco to Austin originally. In re Cragar Indus., Inc., 706 F.2d 503, 505 (5th Cir. 1983). Such analysis should take into account the reasons of convenience that caused the earlier transfer to the Austin division.

The Federal Circuit’s analysis includes no discussion of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Back in the trial court, the same day the Federal Circuit granted mandamus, the plaintiff filed an emergency renewed motion for retransfer so that the trial could be held in January. Defendant opposed, arguing, among other things, that this is a patent case in which only money damages are sought that was filed only in April 2019, so there is no urgency to try it. Judge Albright set a December 30 hearing, in which he indicated he would again order a transfer to Waco. The defendant indicated it would again seek mandamus, and Judge Albright agreed to postpone jury selection until February to give the Federal Circuit time to rule. On January 4, 2021, the defendant filed its latest mandamus petition, along with a motion to stay. The motion to stay lays heavily into public interest factors. However, the Federal Circuit has put the motion and the petition itself on the same briefing schedule, which could allow it to again grant the petition without addressing the underlying question of whether a jury trial should be helpful in the current circumstances.



The Latest on Judge Albright’s January Trial

By on Dec 21, 2020
Posted In , ,

Readers will recall our coverage of Judge Alan Albright’s re-transfer of an Austin patent case to Waco so that the court could hold a jury trial in January as scheduled.

In that case, the defendant has sought mandamus from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to stop the trial, but the petition is not expressly predicated on COVID-19 issues. Briefing is complete, and the panel will rule soon—but the panel could grant the petition without addressing whether trials should be held in the current environment.

Meanwhile, in Judge Albright’s court, the parties continue to debate whether the trial should go forward. The transcript of last week’s motion hearing is a must-read. Introducing his argument, the defendant’s counsel told Judge Albright: “We take this step to avoid the potentially dire outcome for any particular person’s health or life.” This is not the type of remark we saw in patent cases before 2020.

The transcript is here:



Lawyers and Judges Battle over COVID-19

By on Dec 17, 2020
Posted In , ,

Requests for COVID-19-related trial delays can lead to strife between lawyers and judges—and crazy things can happen. We see this most recently in San Bernadino, California, where a civil jury trial has been interrupted in the middle of jury selection. The Sun has the story, which we paraphrase:

An attorney who allegedly tested positive for COVID-19 amid San Bernardino County’s largest civil trial since the start of the pandemic claims court personnel failed to inform dozens of potential jurors that he may have inadvertently exposed them to the virus.

 

The attorney, who represents the defendants, made the claim in a motion, prompting the judge to halt jury selection until Feb. 15.

 

“The court refused to inform potential jurors that they had been exposed to someone contagious with COVID-19,” the Nov. 10 motion states. “Far from contact tracing, the court actually withheld information from those who may have been exposed.”

 

Plaintiff’s counsel, however, says that no jurors have been diagnosed with COVID-19, said an attorney representing the plaintiff. According to plaintiff’s counsel, the judge has been meticulous in following Centers for Disease Control guidelines to guard against the virus, requiring those in the courtroom to practice social distancing and wear protective face covers.

 

Defendant’s in-house counsel said: “The risks are just too high right now, with the dramatic increases in cases, and the lack of intensive care unit space in hospitals. The numbers are astonishing, and the judge made the right call in pausing this trial.”

 

The defendant has made repeated legal attempts to delay the trial due to COVID-19 concerns.

 

Last month, after the judge ordered jury selection to proceed, the defendants filed a petition with the California Court of Appeals seeking an immediate stay, expressing fear the trial could result in a virus super-spreader event. That petition and a subsequent appeal to the California Supreme Court were both denied.

 

The defendants’ reiterated their concerns in a motion last week, argument that Southern California’s COVID-19 infection rate is even more dire than it was a month ago. “Now is not the time to bring together a roomful of strangers for a non-essential civil trial,” the motion asserts.

 

The motion also states that the court failed to adhere to COVID-19 protocols following his own virus diagnosis.

 

On Nov. 18, other defense attorneys informed the judge that lead counsel, who was not present, had a headache and was experiencing chills. They added that lead counsel had been in the courtroom with dozens of jurors, lawyers and court staff over the course of several days just before he became ill.

 

Lead counsel had sat a little more than 6 feet apart from 85 jurors who took turns speaking into a microphone, according to the motion.

 

Upon learning of lead counsel’s symptoms, the judge said she hoped he felt better and wasn’t infected with COVID-19 before moving on to other trial-related matters, says the motion.

 

“The court then immediately proceeded to discussion of deposition designations without any consideration of whether it was appropriate for lawyers who had been in close contact with [the allegedly infected lawyer] to continue to appear in the courtroom alongside jurors and court staff, or whether the jurors who had been exposed to [him] just days prior should be notified of their risk”, the motion states.

 

Defendants’ lead counsel informed the court during a telephonic hearing on Nov. 25 that he had tested positive for COVID-19. However, that revelation was met with skepticism from plaintiff’s attorneys, who suggested that [defendant’s lead counsel] was lying about his COVID-19 diagnosis to delay the trial and also pressed for a copy of his test results, the motion says.

 

Defendant’s in-house lawyer said it is her understanding that the judge didn’t tell jurors they were exposed because she thought a sufficient number of days had passed from when they were in the presence of her infected colleague.

 

Other possible COVID-19 issues also surfaced during the trial.

 

On December 3, a juror came in person to the jury assembly room to report she had been exposed to COVID-19 and could be a carrier, according to the motion. Then, on December 7, a potential juror reportedly was coughing, sneezing and wheezing in the courtroom where he spent about 4 1/2 hours during jury selection.

 

“Jurors who had shared the courtroom with the possibly infectious juror the preceding day were not informed of the potential risk, and attorneys and court staff—who now themselves might be carriers of COVID-19—sat alongside the new day’s fresh batch of jurors,” according to the motion. “The failure to adhere to basic COVID-19 safety protocols during the past several weeks raises serious public health concerns.”

 

It was unclear regarding whether the individuals in the two incidents were diagnosed with COVID-19.



Virtual Courtrooms in Miami

By on Dec 11, 2020
Posted In , ,

This morning we received this notice from state court in Miami (the Eleventh Judicial Circuit) where we have a case pending:

Coronavirus/COVID-19: Courthouses are closed for in-person hearings and trials based on public health advisories at the direction of the Florida Supreme Court. The Eleventh Judicial Circuit wants you safe at home.

 

We are establishing Virtual Courtrooms. Court hearings in your case that we can hold remotely via video or phone conference will be held on the Zoom platform, which is free to you. You will receive an email from the Court if we are proceeding with your hearing with the information you need to connect.



Competing Approaches in South Carolina

By on Dec 7, 2020
Posted In , , ,

Last week saw differing approaches to the pandemic in South Carolina. In the state court system, Chief Justice Don Beatty suspended all state civil and criminal jury trials, finding “that in light of the ongoing increase in COVID-19 cases throughout South Carolina, and the expectation by the medical community and experts that the number of positive cases will continue to increase in the near future, it is prudent to once again make changes to the operations of the circuit courts for the protection of those who work within the courts, as well as those who serve our state by participating in jury service…It is ordered that the circuit courts statewide shall not commence any jury trial after December 4, 2020.”

In federal court, however, US District Judge J. Michelle Childs did not react well to a defendant’s suggestion that a requested stay might not matter that much anyway, given the pandemic. She wrote:

“Defendant is severely mistaken that ‘due to the global COVID-19 pandemic (and its particular impact on civil trial dates), a stay may ultimately not have any meaningful impact on the trial schedule in this case.’ The undersigned has conducted one civil trial and one criminal trial since the COVID-19 pandemic began. Given the success of those trials and the extensive protocols the courthouse has in place, the undersigned intends to proceed with all hearings and trials as scheduled. As a result, this case will proceed to trial in September 2021 as contemplated by the Third Amended Scheduling Order….”



Trial by Webex, but Not Zoom?

By on Dec 4, 2020
Posted In , , ,

Litigation by Zoom is not novel at this point. Depositions by Zoom, motions hearings by Zoom, bench trials by Zoom—it’s all become commonplace. While federal civil jury trials by Zoom have been rare, there have been many in various state courts. And while we know from our daily lives that other videoconferencing services are available (Teams, Webex, GoToMeeting, Collaborate), Zoom predominates in pandemic litigation.

It was curious, then, to see a ruling from the US Court of Federal Claims. Confronted with a routine discovery motion for leave to take depositions remotely pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4), which requires such leave in the absence of a stipulation, Judge Charles Lettow wrote: “In the circumstances at hand, the court GRANTS leave for depositions to be taken either telephonically or by Webex. Zoom should not be used, absent proof that such use would be secure.”

It seems that the parties did not direct the court to Zoomgov.com:

The Jury Returns - Trial by Webex but Not Zoom - Zoom for Government



In WDTex, the Fight Escalates

By on Dec 2, 2020
Posted In , ,

Last week we told you about Judge Alan Albright’s determination to keep trying patent cases. He had a trial scheduled for January in Austin, where he had transferred the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 while leaving himself as the assigned judge. Trials are not being held in the Austin courthouse, however, so he transferred the case back to Waco.

Now the defendant has moved to postpone the trial until after March, attaching a declaration from the Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Baylor University Medical Center stating that the current state of the pandemic “poses a significant potential risk to the health, safety and life of participants in a trial starting January 11, 2021, in Waco or Austin, Texas, as well as to the communities in the Division where trial is held and communities in places where out-of-state participants will return after trial.” According to the declaration, there is a 74% chance of “at least one person having COVID-19 from a group of 50 people gathered in McLennan County [which includes Waco].”

The defendant notes that its trial team “includes persons who are at high risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 or have family members in high-risk groups. Absent a continuance, trial will require these persons—and numerous other attorneys, staff, witnesses, and client representatives—to travel to trial, placing themselves, their families, the Court and its staff, and the local community at risk. It may also force some witnesses to testify remotely.”

The plaintiff opposes the motion.

Meanwhile, most interestingly, the defendant has filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The petition argues that the re-transfer to Waco was improper under the governing US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit standard. There’s a lot going on between the lines, however.



A Mistrial, without a Positive Case

By on Nov 30, 2020
Posted In , ,

In Charlotte, North Carolina, the Superior Court for Mecklenburg County attempted to hold its first pandemic jury trial, starting November 16. Things did not go well.

First, during the evidence phase, a jury was excused after reporting a possible exposure. He later tested negative. Then, jury deliberations were suspended for a week when a juror began experiencing COVID-19-like symptoms. That juror too tested negative. Then, on Monday, a jury who traveled during Thanksgiving notified the court of being exposed to relatives who were not showing COVID-19 symptoms. The courthouse was trying to arrange testing for that juror.

The result? A mistrial, without a positive test.

Meanwhile, the county reports that more than 700 felony cases are awaiting trial, including 100 homicide cases and another 150 involving rapes, assaults and other violent offenses.

According to the Charlotte Observer, “the statewide surge in new COVID-19 cases is already surpassing some of the disease measures the courthouse pledged to use to gauge whether the jury trials should continue.” But jury selection of the second pandemic jury trial is now underway.



 McDermott’s litigation team monitors US courts as they reopen amid the ongoing COVID-19 public health crisis.

BLOG EDITORS

Michael S. Nadel

Jennifer B. Routh

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES