1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |COVID and the Courts: Discovery in the Time of Coronavirus

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. 

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...