SC Judge Postpones Asbestos Trials, but Cautions: 'The Judicial System Must Adapt'
Former South Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Joan Toal insisted that depositions and hearings continue in the asbestos cases, despite the COVID-19 pandemic. "Discovery in these cases may be less convenient than the norm," she wrote. "Inconvenience, in comparison to delaying justice in not just these cases, but the ones that come after, is not a valid basis to stop discovery."
May 18, 2020 at 05:14 PM
4 minute read
A South Carolina judge has postponed a set of asbestos trials this month due to the COVID-19 outbreak but refused to halt the litigation entirely, telling lawyers "the judicial system must adapt."
Last week's ruling, by retired South Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Toal, is the second to postpone asbestos trials, typically scheduled every few months throughout the year. On May 5, Kanawha County Circuit Court Judge Ronald Wilson cited an order of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in halting about 40 trials that he had planned for June, with masks and gloves.
Toal, appointed by the South Carolina Supreme Court to oversee the state's asbestos litigation docket, granted the defendants' motion to continue the South Carolina trials, set to begin in a week, to Sept. 21. Also, despite stating last month that she intended to consolidate the cases for trial, the judge denied plaintiffs' request to do so "at this time."
"Once the facts of each case have been better developed, the court invites the plaintiffs to renew their motion to consolidate," Toal wrote. "As courts across the country are shut down to jury trials, the judicial system must adapt. Consolidation may be a method to adapt and be sure that litigants get their day in court."
Theile McVey, of Kassel McVey in Columbia, South Carolina, who represents the plaintiffs in many of the cases, said she was optimistic Toal could still order consolidation. She said there are now eight cases scheduled for trials, when combined with those already set for September.
"She's saying we're all going to have to adapt to some of this, and we will have gone months without a jury trial," she said. "How are we going to handle that?"
The ruling comes as other courts have scrambled to hold trials during the COVID-19 outbreak. On Monday, Texas judges held jury selection via Zoom for alternative dispute resolution of an insurance dispute. Last month, an Ohio judge postponed a criminal trial after the defendant nearly collapsed.
Toal's order addressed five cases alleging wrongful death claims against numerous companies, including John Crane Inc. and Pfizer Inc. The cases claim exposure to the defendants' products, which contained asbestos, caused the plaintiffs to get mesothelioma or lung cancer.
Many of the defendants have accused Toal of favoring plaintiffs in her orders. Earlier this month, defendant Zurich American Insurance Co. petitioned the South Carolina Supreme Court to order Toal to recuse herself from the asbestos litigation, citing alleged impartiality in her rulings.
In the May 15 decision, Toal refused to grant a separate request from the defendants to halt discovery "until business returns to normal."
"The court knows the caliber of lawyers representing defendants in asbestos litigation and feels confident they will be able to prepare witnesses for testimony, respond to discovery and take and defend depositions," she wrote. "Discovery in these cases may be less convenient than the norm. Inconvenience, in comparison to delaying justice in not just these cases, but the ones that come after, is not a valid basis to stop discovery. Ceasing workup of these cases is not necessary to protect the health of witnesses or lawyers. Therefore, discovery shall continue as scheduled."
She cited an April 3 order by South Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Donald Beatty that postponed trials but provided guidance on using technology to hold depositions and hearings, and the "remote administration of oaths."
"By this order, the South Carolina Supreme Court certainly intended that discovery, including depositions and hearings, continue during this pandemic," Toal wrote. "Indeed, even the United States Supreme Court, for the first time in its long history, announced that it will hear oral arguments via teleconference."
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 AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readAm Law 200 Firm to Defend PUMA in Latest Quarrel Over Patented Shoe Technology
Apple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
Who Got the Work: 16 Lawyers Appointed to BioLab Class Action Litigation
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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