Insights

Los Angeles – July 16, 2020: The Department of Homeland Security reversed its directive that would have forced international students to leave the United States if they were enrolled in only online classes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Crowell & Moring worked with the University of California to file a lawsuit against the federal government and motion for injunctive relief, joining other universities making similar moves.

Washington – January 4, 2018: Crowell & Moring LLP is pleased to announce that it has elected seven lawyers to the firm’s partnership, effective January 1, 2018. The firm has also promoted 23 associates to the position of counsel. The new partners have been promoted from within the ranks of the firm’s Washington, New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles offices, and underscore the firm’s commitment to its Government Contracts, Litigation, Corporate, Environment & Natural Resources, International Dispute Resolution, Intellectual Property, and Labor & Employment practices.

In looking to re-open, courts across the country are confronting both the public health and safety needs of their locales, as well as the role remote operations may continue to play. Courts—both federal and state—are reopening and implementing a patchwork of procedures on a court-by-court basis.

As discussed last week, many courts have issued standing orders delaying civil case deadlines. Litigants should note, however, that discovery-related deadlines set pursuant to statute, local rule, or case-specific scheduling orders have sometimes been excluded from the blanket extensions granted by federal and state trial courts. For example, while the Northern District of Illinois’ 39-day blanket extension order explicitly encompasses discovery deadlines, the District of Maryland explicitly exempted the conduct of discovery in civil cases from its 84-day extension of other civil filing deadlines. And although California state courts have suspended all jury trials for 60 days, that order does not appear to extend to discovery deadlines, which under California law are not automatically affected by a change in the trial date. It is therefore important for litigants with active cases to consider whether and how any COVID-related delays impact pending discovery deadlines—and if standing delay orders do not provide any relief from discovery obligations, consider whether such relief may be warranted.

As we discussed a few weeks ago, the federal courts’ responses to COVID have varied widely. One of the most common responses across the federal courts, however, has been the extension of filing deadlines—although the particular deadlines affected and the length of the extensions granted (again) vary. To give a few examples from all levels of the federal court systems:

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to expand its geographic reach, courts across the country have begun to impose a number of restrictions, closures, and other emergency measures. Currently, however, these measures are being implemented by federal courts on an ad hoc, court-by-court basis, leaving litigants with a patchwork of sometimes inconsistent rules for accessing court services. These restrictions vary from modest restrictions on court access to high-risk individuals, to near total suspension of court activities. Join us as we examine how the courts are responding and strategic considerations for moving your disputes closer to resolution.