Q&A: Texas Judges Are Searching for Protective Gear Before Reopening Courthouses
Courts need personal protective equipment before they can reopen to in-person proceedings. Getting it may take a while.
May 26, 2020 at 06:10 PM
4 minute read
Courts across Texas are busy planning to reopen courthouses to in-person proceedings, but first, they need personal protective equipment.
Judges now are putting in requests for the same scarce PPE that hospitals and first responders have been seeking during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Texas Office of Court Administration has stepped in with an attempt to get the judiciary the gear it needs to reopen safely.
Since last week, it's become a full-time job for Court Security Director Hector Gomez to listen to judges about the masks, sanitizer and other needs and help pass the information to either county emergency management personnel, or the Texas Department of Emergency Management.
Texas Lawyer talked with Gomez about why judges need PPE, the types of gear they're requesting and more. Here are his answers, edited for style and clarity.
Texas Lawyer: Why do Texas courts need personal protective equipment?
Gomez: Before the courts can have in-person hearings at the courthouse, they have to have an operation plan in place and in practice, approved by local county and municipal leaderships. They will submit the operational plan to the Office of Court Administration. At some point in time, we expect to have 254 plans in place, prior to the opening of any court-related hearings in person.
Read more: Things Will Change When Texas Courthouses Reopen: Judiciary Lays Road Map for After June 1
So these plans talk about face coverings?
Gomez: Yes. With that guidance in place, the courts in counties and municipalities, like every one else, were having issues with acquiring the PPE, because just a lack of PPE available on the commercial side and business side of things. With the lack of this equipment, OCA is attempting to direct their requests through the Texas Department of Emergency Management. TDEM in turn facilitates their requests. There's a prioritization of need: Hospitals and first responders, things of that nature. Courts, as an essential entity, are in that prioritization list.
What type of gear are we talking about?
Gomez: Sanitizer, obviously, is a big need; noncontact thermometers, gloves, masks. Plexiglas has come up a time or two. Wipes and Clorox—those seem to be the most frequent items. What I see the most is masks, gloves and hand sanitizer.
Is this only for employees, or also people like jurors, witnesses, lawyers or others in court? Who will get it?
Gomez: Essentially it will be for employees and the public. It's a holistic courthouse approach to anyone entering the courthouse to be able to have a mask, wear gloves or whatever the protocols for that individual courthouse are going to be. You may have some that elect to require no gloves and be a mask-only courthouse.
Why has the OCA decided to try to help the courts to get this, instead of the counties providing it to their courts?
Gomez: That's actually the first decision that needs to be made. The county needs to try to acquire the supplies through their local emergency management coordinator. If there's no way to fulfill that need, then the local county emergency management coordinator has processes in place to facilitate a request directly to TDEM.
Certain resources are available to state agencies through this process—this TDEM process—that are not available to the local county courts, like JP courts and municipal courts.
Principally, TDEM is there for state agencies—state judges. We do have a lot of state judges that are tenants and maintain offices and chambers inside local courthouses.
Will all courts be able to get the PPE that they need in order to open up when they want?
Gomez: It's going to be more of a gradual opening as we get this equipment deployed. Perhaps the large metropolitan areas are in a better position to reopen quicker.
It will take a while. A lot of courts will be at the behest of when their PPE will arrive.
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
© 2025 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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Loopholes, DNA Collection and Tech: Does Your Consent as a User of a Genealogy Website Override Another Person’s Fourth Amendment Right?
- 2Free Microsoft Browser Extension Is Costing Content Creators, Class Action Claims
- 3Reshaping IP Policy Under the Second Trump Administration
- 4Lawyers' Reenactment Footage Leads to $1.5M Settlement
- 5People in the News—Feb. 4, 2025—McGuireWoods, Barley Snyder
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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