US Supreme Court Relaxes Paper Filing Rules Amid Coronavirus Outbreak
The U.S. solicitor general's office said it has been "endeavoring to minimize risks to the health and safety of our personnel responsible for the filing and service of paper copies."
April 15, 2020 at 11:26 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The U.S. Supreme Court, responding to the impact of COVID-19 on court operations, on Wednesday relaxed administrative rules requiring the filing of certain paper documents and the service of those documents on lawyers with clients in cases before the justices.
Paper copies are the official filings in the Supreme Court even though the justices adopted electronic filing in 2017. But the public health crisis recently spurred concerns and calls by some court advocates for the suspension of the paper filing requirements. The rules had required lawyers or staff to make trips to printers or to deliver copies to the court itself.
"When you have a stay-at-home order, would going to the printer or copy place be considered essential business?" attorney Elaine Mittleman of Falls Church, Virginia, said in a recent interview with The National Law Journal. "I'm sure they could say it is. But on the other hand, if you can simply send it by email, then no, it's not."
The Justice Department's solicitor general office also has asked for additional time to file paper copies in various government cases in recent days.
"This short extension is necessary because, in light of COVID-19, this office is endeavoring to minimize risks to the health and safety of our personnel responsible for the filing and service of paper copies of court documents by reducing the number of days each week on which the filing and service of such documents are necessary and on which those personnel must report to work in person," Noel Francisco, the U.S. solicitor general, told the court in one case.
In its Wednesday order, the court limited to a single paper copy, in 8 1⁄2 x 11 inch format, every document filed before the justices have ruled on a petition for review, an extraordinary writ, or a decision to set an appeal for argument. They retained the right to request the usual covered booklet form of that paper copy.
The order said four types of documents now should be submitted only in electronic form. They are: motions for an extension of time, waivers of the right to respond to a petition, blanket consents to the filing of amicus briefs, and motions to delay distribution of a cert petition. The court had recently given lawyers more time to file certain pleadings.
The justices also said the parties are not obligated to serve paper copies of filings on other parties if they agree to electronic service. "Parties are strongly encouraged to use electronic service if feasible," Wednesday's order said.
In related action because of the pandemic, the justices on Monday announced they would hold oral arguments in May by teleconference in 10 cases postponed from their March and April argument sessions. Lawyers in those cases are preparing for the sessions, and thinking through various practical matters, including using a mobile phone or landline.
The justices continue holding their regular private conferences to review petitions and other filings. The court for the last couple of weeks has issued opinions online only, not from the bench.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
4 minute read'Appropriate Relief'?: Google Offers Remedy Concessions in DOJ Antitrust Fight
4 minute readThese Law Firm Leaders Are Optimistic About 2025, Citing Deal Pipeline, International Business
6 minute read'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Key Moves in the Reshuffling German Legal Market as 2025 Dawns
- 2Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 3Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 4Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 5Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250