The court granted one extension, but denied another, citing the rapidly changing landscape regarding COVID-19. Meanwhile, the azaleas are in bloom.
This sunny day I’m celebrating my tulip poplar’s budding out with these JMOL rulings (including lots of interesting fees discussion) following a jury verdict.
New orders continue to come out finding extension requests justified under the changing facts, even in cases where motions had previously been denied.
Monday’s order precluding attendance at mediation by video was vacated sua sponte by Judge Gilstrap in light of the rapidly evolving developments surrounding the COVID-19 virus.
The Court issues this Order sua sponte. In light of rapidly evolving developments related to the COVID-19 virus, the Court hereby VACATES its order of March 16, 2020) (Dkt. No. 966) which required both lead and local counsel to mediate in person in Dallas, Texas. Such mediation would have required lead counsel to travel to Dallas, Texas from various locations around the country, and the Court is persuaded that an appropriate level of caution counsels against such travel at this time. The Court notes that both parties are represented by able and competent local counsel, both of whom are located in Tyler, Texas. Given the parties’ prior proposal to conduct mediation via videoconference, the Court agrees that videoconference participation is appropriate for national counsel who would otherwise have to travel in order to attend mediation.
Order at 1.
Accordingly, the order was modified to eliminate the in-person requirement for national counsel and parties – so long as the parties’ local counsel was present.
The defendant asked the Court to stay the case pending appellate review of an order.
The Court declined to modify the mediation format to allow video conferencing.
Another order reflecting COVID-19 rescheduling, this time rejecting an open ended continuance, moving trial to June and indicating how to handle overseas witnesses.
The court continued the Markman hearing three weeks because the plaintiff’s counsel were under travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 outbreak in New York.
I know you love 35 U.S.C. § 285 – but it’s not a cause of action.
This is what a targeted motion to amend a scheduling order to accommodate a scheduling issue looks like.