IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00152-JRG
`
`ORDER
`
`The Court enters this Order in this case and similar cases now set for in-person jury trials
`
`during December of 2020 and January through February of 2021. In such cases where formal
`
`motions for continuance have been filed, they are GRANTED. In cases where formal motions for
`
`continuance have not been filed, the Court issues this Order sua sponte.
`
`In March of this year, this Court
`
`like its sister courts throughout the nation
`
`ceased all
`
`in-person proceedings in response to the Novel Coronavirus Pandemic. In an effort to keep the
`
`work of the Court moving while avoiding in-person proceedings, the Court issued new guidance
`
`to the parties, implementing new procedures and solutions to enable ongoing progress in cases
`
`while conducting proceedings remotely.1 When, in June and July, public health reports showed
`
`1 This approach, while adequate in a strict sense, allowed the Court to move forward virtually,
`albeit with regularly unwelcomed losses of audio, video, or both, including unfixable lagtime
`between audio and video where lips would move. . . lips would stop . . . and sound would
`follow. The virtual proceedings detracted from the typical administration of justice, depriving the
`Court of the ability to observe such critical factors as intonation, body-language, attitude,
`demeanor, and similar vocal and other physical nuance and those quasi-intangibles that normally
`breathe life and meaning into the written briefing filed on the docket. This approach also
`
`KEYME EX. 1018, PAGE 1
`
`

`

`the rate of increase subsiding in cases of COVID-19, judges in this district and elsewhere became
`
`convinced that in-person proceedings could safely resume. However, to facilitate such a
`
`resumption, many hours and much effort were expended by judges and court staff to develop
`
`extensive safety precautions and protocols rooted in the recommendations of public health officials
`
`to reduce the risk of spreading the virus. Such precautions allowed a return to both in-person jury
`
`and bench proceedings.2
`
`Implementing these and other safeguards and in response to improving medical data and
`
`the gradual reopening of businesses and the economy, this Court conducted its first in-person jury
`
`trial since the onset of the COVID pandemic in August of this year
`
`safely and with no known
`
`incident. Subsequent in-person jury trials (both civil and criminal) were conducted in September,
`
`October, and November in similar fashion. Nevertheless, we now face a dangerously rising rate
`
`of increase in COVID-19 cases and swelling hospitalizations in this district and across the
`
`country.3
`
` that an efficacious vaccine may become widely available
`
`counsel. In some instances, virtual proceedings before this Court were infected by the necessarily
`
`While such happenings may be an increasing norm of remote work in many contexts, they stand
`in stark contrast to the formality and solemnity in which Court proceedings traditionally are and
`must be conducted. Such problems are only magnified in complex proceedings with many moving
`parts.
`2 These safety protocols included but were not limited to: taking temperatures of all entrants to
`court facilities; requiring masks and in some cases gloves; installing industrial air filtration devices
`in courtrooms; spacing in-person lawyers, parties, witnesses and jurors; installing plexiglass
`barriers around witness stands, jury boxes and elsewhere; limiting the number of participants
`physically present in court; periodic and repeated deep cleaning of jury rooms, restrooms and other
`common facilities; written questionnaires to venire members regarding their personal
`circumstances related to the virus sent and answered prior to their appearance; sequestering of
`jurors and providing individualized meals during trials to avoid exposure within communities
`during lunch breaks; and myriad other measures.
`3 This changing reality has recently been brought home by a trial conducted elsewhere in this
`District where, despite extensive precautions and safeguards, a mistrial was declared after multiple
`jurors, counsel, and court staff tested positive for COVID-19.
`
`2
`
`KEYME EX. 1018, PAGE 2
`
`

`

`in the coming months, the Court is persuaded that the current status of the public health in the
`
`Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas requires it to CONTINUE all in-person jury
`
`trials.
`
`
`
`Mindful of its docket largely populated with complex civil cases, where parties, witnesses,
`
`and staff often reside internationally or in domestic locations with a variety of travel restrictions
`
`and quarantines, the Court feels compelled to find that in-person jury trials must be continued.
`
`The Court comes to this result reluctantly
`
`especially considering the huge earlier efforts
`
`undertaken to resume in-person jury trials. While some motion practice may be adequately
`
`addressed via virtual proceedings, the Court believes that the fair adjudication of the rights of the
`
`parties, as envisioned by the Framers and embodied in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments,
`
`requires jury trials to be conducted in-person.4
`
`Consequently, jury selection in the above-captioned case will remain in-person in Marshall,
`
`Texas, but is RESET from 9:00 a.m. on Friday, December 4, 2020 to 9:00 a.m. on Monday,
`
`March 1, 2021. Similarly, any outstanding pretrial conference not already held in the instant case
`
`is CONTINUED to a later date to be determined by the Court.
`
`
`
`The Court, mindful of the significant ramifications of this relief, directs the parties to
`
`promptly meet and confer regarding the current schedule of deadlines in this case. Afterward, the
`
`parties may request additional relief to address any necessary modifications to the case schedule
`
`
`4 Jury trials are innately human experiences. More is often communicated in a courtroom
`non-verbally than verbally. Such a human experience must allow for the look and feel of direct
`human interaction. Such factors as cadence, tone, inflection, delivery, and facial expression are as
`vital to due process as is the applicable statute or case law. When Daniel Webster argued the
`Dartmouth College case, John Marshall cried from the bench. Trustees of Dartmouth College v.
`Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819). Our history is replete with such examples of the humanity
`engrained in the American jury trial. This Court is persuaded that the remote, sterile, and disjointed
`reality of virtual proceedings cannot at present replicate the totality of human experience embodied
`in and required by our Sixth and Seventh Amendments.
`
`
`
`3
`
`KEYME EX. 1018, PAGE 3
`
`

`

`by filing a jointly proposed Motion to Amend the Docket Control Order or other motion practice
`
`as these circumstances might require.5 Such should occur within twenty-one (21) days of this
`
`Order.
`
`
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 20th day of November, 2020.
`
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`
`
`5 To be clear, no one should view this, in and of itself, as a window of opportunity to re-open
`-
`veloped, narrowed, and ready
`
`to proceed.
`
`
`
`4
`
`KEYME EX. 1018, PAGE 4
`
`