COVID-19 Putting Depositions In Danger, But Courts Are Responding
"Lawyers are saying, 'I don't want to come to your office,'" Corpus Christi solo practitioner Monte English said, adding that some attorneys also oppose remote depositions. "Some people feel they need to be face-to-face to cross examine a witness, if that's part of being able to confront your adversary."
March 20, 2020 at 02:13 PM
4 minute read
Mass tort litigator Mikal Watts of San Antonio had four depositions scheduled in a case, but the COVID-19 pandemic was threatening to derail them.
"One lawyer said, 'I'm quashing the deposition … Because I don't want to die,'" recalled Watts, partner in Watts Guerra.
Agreeing that commercial airlines were a "petri dish," Watts saved his depositions by using his own aircraft to fly that anxious attorney to the depositions and back home.
That type of luck didn't hold for Corpus Christi solo practitioner Monte English, who experienced coronavirus deposition cancellations.
"Lawyers are saying, 'I don't want to come to your office,'" English said, adding that some attorneys also oppose remote depositions. "Some people feel they need to be face to face to cross examine a witness, if that's part of being able to confront your adversary."
Watts and English have teamed up to push for a solution for litigators across Texas who find their depositions in danger because of the virus. The lawyers drafted a rule demanding lawyers proceed with remote depositions instead of cancelling them, and they approached judges in Nueces County, which adopted the solution. Now, they're trying to spread the fix to courts in Dallas, San Antonio and Houston.
If delays only spanned a couple of weeks, it might not be a big deal, but the problem is that no one knows how long COVID-19 closures will go on. Indefinite delays could be very bad for plaintiffs lawyers who need cases to conclude to collect attorney fees, and for defense counsel who must keep up their paid-by-the-hour practices, explained English.
"It's a lot of cases, and a lot of depositions. Litigation needs to proceed, in order to get concluded," he said. "The technology is such that we can do this without hindering our clients' cases."
"The practice of law is continuing, opposed to being stopped for strategic reasons," Watts said. "It seems appropriate that all over the state, judges should implement rules and allow remote depositions."
On March 18, the Nueces County courts—which have canceled civil and family jury trials through May 25—made it clear in an order that a party or lawyer cannot stall a deposition just because it's conducted remotely.
"Any deposition in a civil case may proceed telephonically or by recorded video conference, and the COVID-19 pandemic shall not be grounds to quash the same," said the order.
Judge Nanette Hasette of the 28th District Court, who is Nueces County's local administrative judge, explained that she knows of only a few depositions that were stopped so far because of the pandemic, but the judges acted early so the problem would not "snowball into massive stopping of discovery."
Hasette said, "We just wanted to make sure [lawyers] kept going on getting their cases prepared, so when we do come to court, it's not a standstill."
A similar order came from Judge Eric Moyé of the 14th District Court in Dallas, who is Dallas County's local civil administrative judge.
"The desire of a party to appear in-person, or at any other location shall NOT be sufficient grounds to quash a deposition notice," Moyé's order said.
Judge Michael Gomez of the 129th District Court in Houston, who is the Harris County local civil administrative judge, wrote in an email that his courts are working on something similar now.
College Station trial attorney Gaines West said he saw seven scheduled depositions canceled because opposing counsel in the Texas Office of the Attorney General faced travel restrictions.
He embraces the use of video depositions during the outbreak, and added that he hopes the changes will stick, not just for depositions but also for court hearings.
"This will drag everyone into the 21st century in the use of technology," said West. "How great would it be to knock these things out, sitting in my office, rather than sitting in a courtroom waiting to be heard? That's the positive side of the coronavirus: We have the opportunity to learn and do better, do things more efficiently."
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 AllHomegrown Texas Law Firms Expanded Outside the Lone Star State in 2024 As Out-of-State Firms Moved In
5 minute readEnergy Lawyers Working in Texas Expect Strong Demand to Continue in 2025 Across Energy Sector
6 minute read'Never Been More Dynamic': Big Law Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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