US Supreme Court Is Urged to Suspend Paper Filing Requirement
Lawyers across firms have advised the Supreme Court about the impact the coronavirus pandemic is posing on practical things such as delivering paper copies.
April 10, 2020 at 02:20 PM
5 minute read
In 2014, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. suggested that electronic filing at the high court, once it had been operating effectively for some time, would become the official means of filing documents. After nearly three years in operation, neither e-filing nor even a pandemic has dislodged paper copies as the official filing by lawyers.
The nation's public health crisis has triggered concerns among some high court advocates about the paper copy filing requirement, which may require trips to the post office or the printer at a time when stay-at-home orders govern most states. One advocate is urging the court, in a letter to clerk Scott Harris, to consider adopting electronic filing as the official filing and to suspend the paper copy requirement for those filers who are able to submit documents by e-filing.
"When you have a stay-at-home order, would going to the printer or copy place be considered essential business?" asked attorney Elaine Mittleman of Falls Church, Virginia. "I'm sure they could say it is. But on the other hand, if you can simply send it by email, then no, it's not."
A representative for the U.S. Supreme Court did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday. Mittleman said Harris has not responded to her request.
Lawyers across firms have advised the Supreme Court in filings about the impact the pandemic is posing on practical things such as delivering paper copies. In some instances, lawyers in pending cases have asked for more time to file certain pleadings.
"This additional time is warranted because we anticipate that COVID-19 will lead to logistical challenges in printing the reply and delivering it to the court. Counsel for respondent has no objection to this request," Mark Stancil, a Willkie Farr & Gallagher appellate partner, recently told the justices.
Stancil said his request for additional time was made out of deference to the printer to ensure that the printer wasn't put in a time squeeze.
"I'm fine with the paper [requirement] given the court's very accommodating response to the logistical difficulties now," Stancil told The National Law Journal. "I'm old enough to appreciate the paper. I'm in my home office and have several feet of Supreme Court filings in different colored covers."
At the Justice Department, the U.S. solicitor general's office has sought more time from the court to file paper copies. The government recently asked for, and received, a four-day extension to file paper pleadings in the case Bryant v. United States.
"This short extension is necessary because, in light of COVID-19, this office is endeavoring to minimize risks to the health and safety of our personnel responsible for the filing and service of paper copies of court documents by reducing the number of days each week on which the filing and service of such documents are necessary and on which those personnel must report to work in person," Noel Francisco, the solicitor general, told the court.
Mittleman noted that the court sends an email notification that an electronic filing record has been submitted. But the notification also states that the petition filed "will be reviewed once the hard copy is received." There may be a lapse of several days between the e-filing submission and the review—and docketing—of the hard copy.
"They've added e-filing but they're still functioning like the paper submitted," she said. "I wouldn't have paid any attention absent this crisis. It just made me realize how absurd this is."
The court recently urged lawyers to send paper copies via mail or commercial carrier instead of hand delivery. Hand-delivered copies will be sent "offsite for screening before being delivered to the Clerk's Office," the court said.
Federal trial and appellate courts across the country are grappling with administrative process matters amid the virus pandemic. Many courts have postponed hearings and trials, and some courts are embracing video technology to conduct proceedings.
Just down the road, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on April 1 said it was suspending its requirement that lawyers file paper copies.
"For briefs and appendices that are filed electronically, the requirement to file paper copies is deferred pending further order of the court. When feasible, parties may continue to submit paper copies in the normal course," the court said in an advisory.
The Supreme Court, which has canceled March and April oral arguments, is weighing options about how to proceed in the coming weeks.
"The court will consider rescheduling some cases from the March and April sessions before the end of the term, if circumstances permit in light of public health and safety guidance at that time," the court said in a statement April 3. "The court will consider a range of scheduling options and other alternatives if arguments cannot be held in the courtroom before the end of the term."
The term traditionally ends in June each year.
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
© 2024 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 AllRepublican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
4 minute readCars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
'Water Cooler Discussions': US Judge Questions DOJ Request in Google Search Case
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1AI Adoption, Data Center Building Boom Opening More Doors for Cybercriminals, Many of Them Teenagers
- 2Mayor's Advisory Committee To Hold Hearing on Fitness of Judicial Candidates
- 3Are New York City Housing Providers Ready for the Fair Chance for Housing Act?
- 4Litigator of the (Past) Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 5Hungary Tries to Beat Lawsuit from Holocaust Survivors
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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