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 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$file/motioniqbal.pdf, or go to 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 for information.•


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


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit