ILNews

Federal Bar Update: Dec. 1 rule changes now in effect

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Federal Bar UpdateAs previewed in prior columns, effective Dec. 1 various amendments took effect to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (as well as appellate, criminal, and evidence rules). Rule 26 was amended to apply work-product protection to the discovery of draft expert reports. Rule 56 amendments are significant but do not change summary judgment standards or burdens.

When federal rules are amended, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2074, the amended “rule shall take effect no earlier than December 1 of the year in which such rule is so transmitted unless otherwise provided by law. The Supreme Court may fix the extent such rule shall apply to proceedings then pending, except that the Supreme Court shall not require the application of such rule to further proceedings then pending to the extent that, in the opinion of the court in which such proceedings are pending, the application of such rule in such proceedings would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which event the former rule applies.”

As the Supreme Court has done in prior years, with these amendments the court stated in its amendment order that the “foregoing amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall take effect on December 1, 2010, and shall govern all proceedings thereafter commenced and, insofar as just and practicable, all proceedings then pending.”

Thus, the new rules apply to all new cases from Dec. 1 forward and to all pre-existing cases to the extent “just and practicable.” Courts typically look to “undue prejudice” in applying this standard. With respect to the current amendments in Rules 26 and 56, it is expected that the amendments will apply to pending cases.

Proper ecf Filing – In Green Mountain Financial Fund v. LaCroix, No. 1:09-CV-1216-SEB-TAB (Nov. 22, 2010), plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment along with 16 supporting exhibits. The court struck the filing with leave to re-file for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.6 and paragraph 13 of the CM/ECF Policy and Procedure Manual, which states, “When uploading attachments during the electronic filing process … a brief description must be entered for each individual PDF file. The description must include not only the exhibit number or letter, but also a brief description of the document itself.”

In Green Mountain, plaintiff had labeled the supporting exhibits “A,” “B,” “C,” etc., but did not describe the exhibits. The court noted, “For example, Exhibit A might have been described as ‘Legal Description: Tract 1.’ Exhibit B might have been described as ‘Note, July 10, 2007.’” The court added, “When voluminous exhibits are not properly described, it is difficult and burdensome for the Court and other parties to this lawsuit to locate the exhibits electronically.” Accordingly, the court struck the filing with leave to re-file seven days later and tolled the responding parties’ response brief until such re-filing. •

__________

John Maley (jmaley@btlaw.com) is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg practicing federal and state litigation, employment matters, and appeals. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s.

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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT