COVID and the Courts: Discovery in the Time of Coronavirus
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.14.20
As discussed last week, many courts have issued standing orders delaying civil case deadlines. Litigants should note, however, that discovery-related deadlines set pursuant to statute, local rule, or case-specific scheduling orders have sometimes been excluded from the blanket extensions granted by federal and state trial courts. For example, while the Northern District of Illinois’ 39-day blanket extension order explicitly encompasses discovery deadlines, the District of Maryland explicitly exempted the conduct of discovery in civil cases from its 84-day extension of other civil filing deadlines. And although California state courts have suspended all jury trials for 60 days, that order does not appear to extend to discovery deadlines, which under California law are not automatically affected by a change in the trial date. It is therefore important for litigants with active cases to consider whether and how any COVID-related delays impact pending discovery deadlines—and if standing delay orders do not provide any relief from discovery obligations, consider whether such relief may be warranted.
While this consideration will ultimately depend on case- and client-specific needs, litigants should keep a few things in mind, including:
- The Impact of COVID on Written Discovery – While it remains relatively easy for counsel to serve discovery requests, it may be practically impossible to respond within the time allotted under the FRCP or state law because the documents or employees needed to complete the response are inaccessible, unavailable, or redirected to urgent pandemic response.
- The Impact of COVID on Document Collection & Review - The COVID-19 pandemic is generally not affecting the availability of document review or discovery platforms, but it may significantly limit the ability of litigants to conduct on-site document collections or to engage document review teams.
- Deposition Difficulties Resulting from COVID – Current travel restrictions make many in-person depositions impossible. Video or telephonic depositions are generally permitted in federal court under FRCP 30(b)(4), but only by stipulation of the parties or by court order. State court rules on remote depositions vary. For example, New York Civil Practice Rule 3113(d) largely mirrors federal rules allowing for remote depositions by stipulation of the parties (NY CPLR 3113(d)). But under a recently-adopted emergency rule in California, either the witness or the deposing party can unilaterally elect to hold the deposition remotely.
Litigants in discovery will need to actively evaluate how COVID-19 will affect their ability to conduct discovery and meet applicable deadlines, as well as case-specific strategic considerations. In the event that an extension of discovery deadlines is necessary, we recommend seeking consent from opposing counsel and/or relief from the court early, rather than waiting until the deadline is looming.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25




