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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT