Litigation
Cal. Litig. 2020, Volume 33, Number 2
Content
- A Long and Winding Road to Undo Bad Supreme Court Law
- Affirmative Action Quandaries the Affirmative Action Puzzle: a Living History from Reconstruction to Today (Pantheon:322 Pages) By Melvin I. Urofsky
- Editor's Foreword Sweet Successes — On or About 31 Flavors
- From Cla's Ceo a Personal Plea for Addressing the Root Causes of Racism
- From the Section Chair News for a New World
- Insurance Coverage Analysis Avoids Malpractice Landmines
- Intellectual Property Litigation and Other Updates in the Video Game Industry as of April 2020
- Masthead
- MCLE Article Threats, Extortion and Legitimate Advocacy
- Navigating the New Settled Statement Procedures
- Recent Legislative Changes Affect Long-Standing Pre-Trial Discovery Practice
- Showing Lack of Probable Cause: Plaintiff's Burden of Proof in Opposing an Anti-Slapp Motion Attacking a Malicious Prosecution Claim
- Stringfellow Acid Pits: the Toxic and Legal Legacy By Brian Craig
- Table of Contents
- That Family Is Wrong for You: Religious Objections Before the Supreme Court
- The Puzzle of Precedent in the California Court of Appeal
- Nuts and Bolts of Videoconference Dispute Resolution in the Time of Covid-19
Nuts and Bolts of Videoconference Dispute Resolution in the Time of COVID-19
By Marc Alexander
Marc Alexander is a mediator and litigator at AlvaradoSmith APC. He authors the blog California Mediation and Arbitration (www.calmediation.org) and co-contributes to the blog California Attorneys Fees (www.calattorneysfees.com). His email is malexander@alvaradosmith.com.
By necessity, I have started to conduct mediations via videoconference. This was an unanticipated development in my practice. Our local rules in California’s Central District only contemplated that, at the discretion of the mediator, parties residing outside the Central District could have a representative with final settlement authority available by phone during the entire proceeding in lieu of a personal appearance. Evidently, the local rules did not contemplate a pandemic. All of that changed with COVID-19 amid valid concerns about public health and safety.
Also, in the Central District, the largest group of cases that must be mediated are Americans with Disabilities Act cases. The ADA plaintiffs have disabilities affecting access, and a significant number are immunocompromised. Under current conditions, the alternatives are to cancel mediations, continue mediations, conduct mediations by phone, chat, or email, or conduct mediations by videoconference. In many of the ADA cases that must be mediated, a videoconference could be the best alternative in the absence of personal appearances.