Litigation missteps to avoid in the Eastern District

The Eastern District of Virginia, or EDVA, is famously known as the “Rocket Docket” due to its status as the fastest U.S. District Court for 11 of the past 13 years, resolving civil cases at almost twice the average speed of district courts nationwide, according to a 2021 article by Robert Tata, “How The ‘Rocket Docket’ Continues To Roar Through COVID.”

This renowned speed and efficiency, combined with the fact that it is home to multiple government agencies and national corporations, makes the district a hotbed for high-profile, headline-generating litigation.

But the EDVA also has many unique local rules, practices, and precedents that are not as well known, presenting a risk of costly missteps for the unaware litigant. This article details four of those — in other words, four things not to do when litigating in the EDVA.

Do NOT ignore the expectation of civility and professionalism

The commonwealth of Virginia has a rich and lengthy legal history, reaching back centuries prior to our nation’s founding. That history engendered a relatively conservative and traditional approach to the practice of law and court decorum. The EDVA thus places upon its practitioners a high expectation of civility and professionalism. The judges of the district are particularly disapproving of gamesmanship, disrespect to opposing counsel or disregard for proper court decorum.

To this end, Local Rule 83.1(J) admonishes that “Counsel shall at all times conduct and demean themselves with dignity and propriety.” Local Rule 7 imposes a duty to meet and confer with opposing counsel in “a good-faith effort to narrow the area of disagreement” prior to seeking a hearing on any motion, a provision intended to reduce gamesmanship and posturing through motions practice.

Further, a statement on the EDVA’s website from Chief Judge Mark S. Davis encourages practitioners, particularly “those lawyers who are either beginning their litigation practice or are new to this district,” to be familiar with and abide by the Code of Pretrial and Trial Conduct developed by the American College of Trial Lawyers. This ethical code outlines the qualities of a trial lawyer, ethical obligations to clients, colleagues, the court, and the justice system, and guidelines for proper conduct in various areas of legal practice. The judges of the EDVA take matters of professionalism seriously and so should litigants.

Do NOT expect an extension as a matter of course

Proud of its reputation as the Rocket Docket, the EDVA has adopted as its unofficial motto the maxim “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied.” This phrase is even etched above the entrance to the Alexandria Division courthouse, on the pedestal of Lady Justice and just above a relief depicting a tortoise and a hare to further emphasize the message.

Indeed, Local Rule 7(I) states bluntly: “Any requests for an extension of time relating to motions must be in writing and, in general, will be looked upon with disfavor.”

Continuances of trials and hearings are also disfavored, with Local Rule 7(G) stating: “No continuance will be granted other than for good cause and upon such terms as the Court may impose.”

With this in mind, litigants in the EDVA should be prepared for fast-paced litigation; agreed-to extensions should be carefully documented; and requests for extensions should not be routine and must be accompanied with substantial justification.

Do NOT miss the accelerated objection period  for discovery requests

Another manifestation of the EDVA’s Rocket Docket approach — and another opportunity for costly mistakes — is the district’s accelerated objection period. Modifying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 and 34’s 30-day timeline for serving “answers and any objections” to discovery requests, Local Rule 26(C) requires that objections must be served just 15 days after service of written discovery requests from a party. The Rule does not modify the general 30-day deadline for answering discovery requests.

Yet, a litigant who waits to serve objections and answers together without seeking an extension risks waiving those objections. (See, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s v. AdvanFort Co. (E.D. Va. July 25, 2019); Cappetta v. GC Servs. Ltd. P’ship (E.D. Va. Dec. 24, 2008).)

To avoid waiving objections, litigants should carefully note the 15-day objection deadline as soon as discovery is served.

Parties may also agree together to have objections and responses occur on the same date at the 30-day response deadline, so it is a good idea to discuss this option with opposing counsel at the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference.

Avoid general objections to discovery requests

The EDVA does not tolerate “general objections” to discovery requests, regardless of what label counsel may use.

This position is drawn from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33’s requirement that the grounds for each objection must be “stated with specificity,” yet the EDVA has applied that requirement with particular stringency. (See, e.g., ACMA USA Inc. v. Surefil LLC (E.D. Va. July 7, 2008); Barb v. Brown’s Buick, Inc.(E.D. Va. Feb. 2, 2010).)

For example, in Capetta, despite the defendant’s claim that it objected with specificity to the plaintiff’s discovery requests, the court held that the objections were not specific because explanations of the objections were only provided in some instances. According to the court, “‘[g]eneral objections are not useful to the court ruling on a discovery motion,’ and a bare objection does not meet the standard for a successful objection.” Instead, “[f]or [an] objection to be adequate, it must be ‘plain enough and specific enough so that the court can understand in what way the interrogatories are alleged to be objectionable.’”

To avoid this misstep, litigants should carefully state with specificity the grounds of each objection. The objections must give the court enough information to assess the validity of the objection.

Finally, avoid boilerplate objections that are incorporated into specific objections without an explanation of their basis.

We will discuss four more things not to do when litigating in the EDVA in part two of this series.

David N. Anthony, Timothy J. St. George and H. Scott Kelly are partners, and Noah J. DiPasquale is an associate in the Richmond office of Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders. This is part one of a two-part series. Part 2 can be found here.