CAFC Issues Guidance on Allowable, Unallowable Conflicts With Oral Argument Sessions
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last week issued guidance on "allowable and unallowble counsel scheduling conflicts" with oral argument sessions, clarifying that the list is non-exhaustive. The guidance said the three key requirements needed for a showing of "good cause" in rescheduling oral arguments are "certainty," in that the "conflict is already scheduled"; "specificity"; and "strong basis," which means the conflict must be for a "strong reason" and can't be easily "resolved or rescheduled."
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Examples of allowable conflicts include scheduled participation in hearings, trials, arbitration or mediation the week of, before or after an oral argument session. Medical appointments, pre-planned vacation and family engagements, and service in a local governmental position all also qualify as allowable conflicts.
Unallowable conflicts include submissions "with no explanation," preparation for a hearing other than the "day immediately prior to the proceeding," filing deadlines for the CAFC or any other tribunal and depositions. In addition, general speaking engagements and client meetings also don't count as permissible excuses.