Order denying Honda’s objections to proceeding with remote jury trial in civil case where plaintiff’s medical condition had caused his case to be placed on preference calendar due to likelihood of his imminent death; court noted that criminal defendants have a Sixth Amendment right that…
Type of Order: Case-Specific
Recognizes need to balance interests in moving case forward and ensuring that court has full information in making any decisions; in absence of permanent leadership, finds that “it is in the best interests of the case to allow the Initial Census Team, Practices and Procedures…
Type of Order: Case-Specific, Remote Proceedings
Finding good cause and compelling circumstances to allow remote testimony to complete bench trial. (available at 2020 WL 1280931) In re RFC and ResCap Liquidating Trust Action (D. Minn. Mar. 13, 2020)
Type of Order: Case-Specific, Remote Proceedings
Offering to allow parties to hold traditionally in-person Markman hearing in patent infringement case by videoconference. (available at 2020 WL 1182006) Automatic Equip. Mfg. Co. v. Danko Mfg., LLC (D. Neb. Mar. 12, 2020)
Type of Order: Case-Specific, Remote Proceedings
Rejecting party request to delay motion hearing, explaining why judge “simply ha[s] to keep [his] civil motions calendar moving,” and why telephonic hearings are workable. Wachovia Bank Judges Letter (D. Minn. March 24, 2020)
Type of Order: Case-Specific, Remote Proceedings
Transcript of proceedings before Magistrate Judge Sunil R. Harjani in which judge favors use of video depositions over cancellations. County of Cook v. Bank of America Corp. et al. (March 12, 2020)
Type of Order: Case-Specific, Depositions
Observing that “the medical community is very, very busy right now,” orders parties to meet and confer to determine whether outstanding medical provider depositions are in fact needed; institutes COVID-related protocol requiring proponent of deposition to report to court information regarding proposed deponent, including anticipated…
Type of Order: Case-Specific, Depositions
(available at 2020 WL 1322850) Orders parties to meet and confer to determine which medical provider depositions should go forward; institutes COVID-related protocol requiring proponent of deposition to report to court information regarding proposed deponent, including anticipated involvement in preparation or response to COVID-related public…
Type of Order: Case-Specific, Depositions
Rejecting parties’ stipulation attempting to extend discovery deadlines in light of COVID-19, finding that “[n]either party has explained that they have attempted to use all available means, including video and telephone conferencing and electronic and telephonic communication, to complete discovery, nor have they provided any…
Type of Order: Case-Specific, Discovery Deadlines
Denies defendants’ unopposed motion to stay dates for discovery until at least May 15, noting that “many sectors of society are being forced to adapt,” and instead extends the deadlines for discovery by four weeks in light of logistical challenges. In re Duramax Diesel Litigation…
Type of Order: Case-Specific, Discovery Deadlines
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
This website uses Google Analytics to collect anonymous information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.
Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.
Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!
More information about our Cookie Policy
