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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT