ILNews

Federal Bar Update: Comments accepted on Rule 45 amendments

John Maley
September 14, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Federal Bar Update2011 amendments – For December 2011, there are no amendments in process for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In April, the Supreme Court approved various amendments to the appellate rules, criminal rules, bankruptcy rules, and evidence rules. Absent action by Congress, which is not anticipated, these rule amendments will take effect Dec. 1, 2011.

2013 proposals: Rule 45 – Looking further down the road, for 2013 proposed amendments are currently published for comment through Feb. 15, 2012. The key proposal would revise Rule 45 significantly. As subpoenas are so frequently used, practitioners should review and provide comment on the proposal. Visit www.uscourts.gov and select Rules & Policies, followed by Federal Rulemaking, for the draft proposals. The committee’s proposals would simplify various provisions, particularly those dealing with where subpoenas can command compliance. The committee explains, “In particular, the amendments direct that the court where the action is pending is the ‘issuing court’ no matter where compliance is required, and they collect in one new subsection all provisions about where compliance can be required. As at present, however, they provide that court enforcement of a subpoena should be sought in the compliance district.”

Further, the proposed amendments “reject a line of cases that found authority in the current rule to compel parties or party officers to travel more than 100 miles from outside the state to testify at trial, and introduce limited authority for a court asked to enforce another court’s subpoena to transfer a subpoena-related motion to the court that issued the subpoena. Finally, they relocate and somewhat broaden the existing requirement for notice to the other parties before a subpoena is served.”

Removal/remand/amount-in-controversy – As most practitioners know, removal of personal injury diversity cases can be challenging when no dollar claim is pleaded in state court (such prayers are precluded by Indiana Trial Rule 8 in personal injury, wrongful death, and punitive damage claims). Other types of cases often lack a dollar-certain prayer as well.

In Family Express Corp. v. Creative Risk Solutions, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65351 (N.D. Ind. June 16, 2011) (DeGuilio, J.), the court remanded a removed diversity action based on the defendants’ pre-suit receipt of settlement correspondence indicating more than $75,000 was at issue. The court noted that the 7th Circuit has held that settlement letters can be used to establish the amount in controversy. Accordingly, the court held that removal was required within 30 days of receipt of the complaint (and not within 30 days of when this defendant learned from discovery that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000).

Study on 12(b)(6) motions – The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has released a study on 12(b)(6) dismissal motions filed, granted, and denied before and after Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009). That 52-page study can be located at http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/motioniqbal.pdf/$file/motioniqbal.pdf, or go to www.uscourts.gov and drill through Rules & Policies, Overview, What’s New.

Mark your calendars – The Annual Federal Civil Practice Seminar will be held Friday, Dec. 16, in Indianapolis, starting at 1:30 p.m. Three hours CLE will be provided. See www.theindianalawyer.com for information.•

__________

John Maley – jmaley@btlaw.com – is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, practicing federal and state litigation, employment matters, and appeals.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT