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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT